Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

What the fuck are you even talking about? 20 x 10 x 60 does in fact = 12000. We're in agreement there. Congratulations. Not sure how this is even relevant to anything that's been discussed in the last few pages? Why the fuck are we talking about mana per hour right now and how is that relevant? What kind of drugs are you on?

VQ please. Save yourself some embarrassment here and do something.

This is easy, because the math you keep claiming is "invalid" that I have been using has the exact same principle.

If you agree 20 x 10 x 60 = 12000 mana per hour via meditation is correct, then you will also agree with these DPS breakpoints:

100 DPS will kill a mob with 8000 HP in 80 seconds.

200 DPS will kill a mob with 8000 HP in 40 seconds.

400 DPS will kill a mob with 8000 HP in 20 seconds.

If we are in agreement with this, then I am not sure where my argument was dishonest, my math incorrect, or my data invalid. You haven't explained any of this, and just keep dismissing everything I say.

[cyxthryth]

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

This is easy, because the math you keep claiming is "invalid" that I have been using has the exact same principle.

If you agree 20 x 10 x 60 = 12000 mana per hour via meditation is correct, then you will also agree with these DPS breakpoints:

100 DPS will kill a mob with 8000 HP in 80 seconds.

200 DPS will kill a mob with 8000 HP in 40 seconds.

400 DPS will kill a mob with 8000 HP in 20 seconds.

If we are in agreement with this, then I am not sure where my argument was dishonest, my math incorrect, or my data invalid. You haven't explained any of this, and just keep dismissing everything I say.

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

I am not sure why your post(s) would seemingly indicate that you - still - think that the particular data/information that you keep providing in your copy/pasted posts - which includes data/information of your Shaman's performance in an environment/context/scenario that is contrary to the environment/context/scenario relevant to this discussion, as has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple posters - is somehow relevant to this discussion. It is not. It is simply irrelevant for reasons explained in multiple posts by multiple posters (including in this very post).

[PlsNoBan]

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

This is easy, because the math you keep claiming is "invalid" that I have been using has the exact same principle.

If you agree 20 x 10 x 60 = 12000 mana per hour via meditation is correct, then you will also agree with these DPS breakpoints:

100 DPS will kill a mob with 8000 HP in 80 seconds.

200 DPS will kill a mob with 8000 HP in 40 seconds.

400 DPS will kill a mob with 8000 HP in 20 seconds.

If we are in agreement with this, then I am not sure where my argument was dishonest, my math incorrect, or my data invalid. You haven't explained any of this, and just keep dismissing everything I say.

I literally addressed this multiple times and you just seem to ignore it. Or once again your opinion disagrees and obviously your opinion is correct and nobody elses is so you dismiss it. Or you move the goalpost again.etc.etc

Your entire "DPS breakpoint" argument is retarded for a long list of reasons. First of which being that DPS varies. No combination of classes and/or pets will ever do exactly 200 dps to every mob. You keep trying to precisely math out everything and act like everything is going to be exactly the way you math it even if you change conditions or variables. This tells me you have absolutely zero experience in programming or any kind of software development. Unexpected things happen all the time. This is the entire point of things like unit tests. No human being can 100% accurately predict the outcome of such a complex system with all the different variables and conditions present. Despite what you may think the code running behind the scenes in a game like everquest is fairly complex. Not to mention introducing the unpredictability of human behavior into the equation.

All of that set aside. Even if you were 100% correct about your assessment. You'd still be wrong in assuming that just because you don't get an extra named/PH spawn in a short play session that additional DPS is completely worthless. This is just straight up factually incorrect. It's nothing but your opinion that you've been spewing as fact for dozens of pages. There are tons of people that play this game for super long periods of time per session. I used to regularly play 12-16 hour days at one point in my life. Back when I was younger and unemployed. If I'm not mistaken your own calculation said an extra named cycle would be gained at 11 hours. There are many people that play that long or longer per day. Even if you DON'T get an extra named/PH cycle you can still kill additional mobs per hour. Many many camps (including fungi king that we use as an example often here) has A LOT of mobs within pulling range. I don't know about you but I prefer to play the game and not kill 3 spawns and go AFK for 25 minutes. More trash kills = objectively better. Even if its only a minimal benefit.

Ultimately I think the main crux of the disagreement is that you place an insanely high value on the utility and "safety" aspect that you feel a shaman brings. This isn't backed by data or math. This is simply your preference/opinion being asserted as fact. So far everyone here except you agrees (If you quote fucking argumentum ad populum one more time I swear to fuck) that a group with a cleric and 2 enchanters has MORE than sufficient utility and safety. This is why everyone keeps saying "redundant" in reference to shaman. They don't really bring anything the group doesn't already have. I leveled a enc/enc duo with no healer and we legitimately died like less than 5 times the entire leveling process. I honestly think it was 2 or 3 times over dozens of LONG sessions. It's not an exaggeration to say a cleric is the only safety net this group needs. You don't need to be gods gift to everquest or a pro player or any of that nonsense. 2 reasonably well played enchanters and 1 halfway decent cleric is an unstoppable killing machine. You're kind of an insane person if you really think that group is like "Oh man I really wish we had a shaman so we don't wipe". That's fucking ridiculous man. I know how much you love your class but get fucking real.

Summary: Enc/Enc/Clr doesn't NEED anything. The only real benefit to be gained is more DPS or perhaps some utility the group doesn't already have. Shaman DPS is pretty mediocre and almost all of their utility the group already has. Thus they would not be anyone's (except DSM's) first choice as the 4th filler for this group.

[cyxthryth]

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

Again, this is your opinion, with no basis in fact.

It is unclear what - specifically - you are - laughably - attempting to objectively state is the Quoted poster's opinion. Please elaborate?

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

The idea I have a bias towards Shamans is another strawman.

For the sake of civil discussion, can you please provide the definition you are using for "strawman"?

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

I am not sure how bringing data and math from the actual game is a dishonest argument.

I am not sure why your post(s) would seemingly indicate that you - still - think that the particular data/information that you keep providing in your copy/pasted posts - which includes data/information of your Shaman's performance in an environment/context/scenario that is contrary to the environment/context/scenario relevant to this discussion, as has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple posters - is somehow relevant to this discussion. It is not. It is simply irrelevant for reasons explained in multiple posts by multiple posters (including in this very post).

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

I am not sure how saying 20 x 10 x 60 = 12000 mana per hour via meditation is "napkin math", and worthy of being derided.

I am not sure why your post would seem to indicate that you believe that "saying 20 x 10 x 60 = 12000 mana per hour via meditation" is somehow relevant to this discussion. Please elaborate?

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

You are the person who is asserting their opinions as facts and dismissing everything else.

You have provided zero evidence to support the claim that someone else "is the person who is asserting their opinions as facts and dismissing everything else", therefore, the claim is simply unsubstantiated (and probably false).

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

If you honestly thought my math/data was incorrect, you would be able to say why. You can't say why, so you just dismiss it lol.

I am not sure why your post(s) would seemingly indicate that you - still - think that the particular data/information that you keep providing in your copy/pasted posts - which includes data/information of your Shaman's performance in an environment/context/scenario that is contrary to the environment/context/scenario relevant to this discussion, as has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple posters - is somehow relevant to this discussion. It is not. It is simply irrelevant for reasons explained in multiple posts by multiple posters (including in this very post).

[Toxigen]

3rd enc
mage
necro/druid (depending on if you want to do undead or animal charm dungeons)
shaman
wizard
2nd cleric

thats how it goes in order from most to least gudder caster/priest only 4th with enc/enc/cleric base 3 man

can we get this on page 1 and nuke the other 314 pages of DSM sperging out?

thank you all for coming out to this textbook display of autism

[PlsNoBan]

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

3rd enc
mage
necro/druid (depending on if you want to do undead or animal charm dungeons)
shaman
wizard
2nd cleric

thats how it goes in order from most to least gudder caster/priest only 4th with enc/enc/cleric base 3 man

can we get this on page 1 and nuke the other 314 pages of DSM sperging out?

thank you all for coming out to this textbook display of autism

I agree with this list. I think you could make an argument that necro or druid would be even better than mage IF you're solely doing camps where animal or undead charms respectively are available. But mage is definitely better overall for the cases where charms aren't available.

Also does anyone else find it funny that like 3 different people in this thread have high or max lvl mages AND shamans and all unanimously agree mage is better for this hypothetical group makeup? But somehow the guy that only has a shaman and some rough math based on data from different conditions than the question at hand is 100% sure he's correct?

[Toxigen]

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

I agree with this list. I think you could make an argument that necro or druid would be even better than mage IF you're solely doing camps where animal or undead charms respectively are available. But mage is definitely better overall for the cases where charms aren't available.

Also does anyone else find it funny that like 3 different people in this thread have high or max lvl mages AND shamans and all unanimously agree mage is better for this hypothetical group makeup? But somehow the guy that only has a shaman and some rough math based on data from different conditions than the question at hand is 100% sure he's correct?

Yeah you could list it mage/necro/druid as tied for 2nd depending on group preferences. Mage edges out when no undead or animals around ofc.

[PlsNoBan]

If you're gonna base your group around killing 3 spawns and going AFK you might as well bring paladins as DPS. They're much safer and provide extra healing and utility u love so much. You'll get just as many cycles of 3 mobs in a short session. There's literally no benefit to the entire rogue class using this braindead logic.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

If you're gonna base your group around killing 3 spawns and going AFK you might as well bring paladins as DPS. They're much safer and provide extra healing and utility u love so much. You'll get just as many cycles of 3 mobs in a short session. There's literally no benefit to the entire rogue class using this braindead logic.

Please show me the level 60 camp that is pulling more than 20 mobs in a 30 minute respawn cycle, but is too difficult for a Shaman to root/rot. That isn't Sebilis, so you need to think of another place.

[cyxthryth]

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

Please show me the level 60 camp that is pulling more than 20 mobs in a 30 minute respawn cycle, but is too difficult for a Shaman to root/rot. That isn't Sebilis, so you need to think of another place.

Please provide evidence that a Shaman's ability to root/rot is - objectively, not just in your opinion - relevant to the discussion.