Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Aren't you the one changing the subject?

You can have someone doing solo DPS mechanics on any class incorrectly. What difference does that make?

In order for this discussion to finally be put to bed, we need a parse with a Shaman doing DPS with 2 Enchanters and 1 Cleric, and another parse with a Mage substituted.

What on Earth is a video about a 3 man group with 1 Necromancer and 1 Enchanter, where you're healing, prove Shaman do more than Mage in a 4 man group with 2 Enchanters and 1 Cleric?

And if this point was to prove you matched your solo parse, then that's just stupid anyway. You can't sustain that DPS for very long, and you're healing in a trio. Put that in a 4 man, and Shamans quickly become useless compared to a Mage -- who are going to sustain higher DPS for much much longer.

Someone else want to take over now? Jesus Christ, this guy is insane.

I am not changing the subject at all. The hundreds of pages of trolling in this thread stemmed from the idea that you cannot use a solo video to describe how a class's DPS works in a group scenario.

Early in the thread, I created https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XwiGKTuu2E , showing me casting at least 1 Ice Strike per 36 second average monster encounter.

In my latest video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG1Aat1XdbI you have 77 dead mobs, 77 Ice Strikes, and 40 second average monster encounters over a 2 hour period. This is sustained DPS over a long period of time, while I was also doing my other Shaman duties.

I was correct that you can create a solo DPS video that mimics sustained group DPS. Therefore, you cannot simply invalidate the evidence I have provided thus far.

It is now time that you provide evidence showing how a Cleric or Mage will be superior to a Shaman in a four man group. It is not reasonable for you to keep asking other people for evidence, while providing nothing in return.

[Vexenu]

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

In my latest video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG1Aat1XdbI you have 77 dead mobs, 77 Ice Strikes, and 40 second average monster encounters over a 2 hour period. This is sustained DPS over a long period of time, while I was also doing my other Shaman duties.

Do you really think that landing a single 675 DD nuke per kill on mobs with 6-10k HP counts as "sustained DPS"?

In the video, you made plenty of other contributions to the trio besides DPS, so throwing out a nuke here and there is perfectly fine. But in a theoretical 4 man group with 2 Enchanter pets DPSing/tanking and a Cleric healing, you aren't needed for anything but slowing, buffing pets and DPSing. And given that spamming JBB is your best sustained DPS, along with your pet and the occasional Bane of Nife or Ice Strike, you won't even be maintaining 50 DPS over a long grind.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Do you really think that landing a single 675 DD nuke per kill on mobs with 6-10k HP counts as "sustained DPS"?

The definition of sustained is "continuing for an extended period or without interruption".

Landing one Ice Strike per mob on average is indeed the definition of sustained DPS.

This is why you can create a solo video mimicking a group situation. You just need to math out how many offensive spells you can cast on a mob per fight. This is just a question of average fight duration, average time between pulls, and respawn timers.

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

In the video, you made plenty of other contributions to the trio besides DPS, so throwing out a nuke here and there is perfectly fine. But in a theoretical 4 man group with 2 Enchanter pets DPSing/tanking and a Cleric healing, you aren't needed for anything but slowing, buffing pets and DPSing. And given that spamming JBB is your best sustained DPS, along with your pet and the occasional Bane of Nife or Ice Strike, you won't even be maintaining 50 DPS over a long grind.

Let me ask you this. If DPS is a primary factor for your play preferences, Wouldn't Enchanter/Enchanter/Enchanter/Shaman be better since the Shaman is providing DPS, while a Cleric is not?

I clearly showed in my video that the Shaman can do all of the tanking for the pets, so you don't need CH to keep the pets up. This means in this group the Shaman is providing at least 30 DPS over a Cleric. DPS will be a bit higher with buffing the Charmed pets with Avatar, and having the pets attack from behind for the entire fight. I just haven't parsed that yet to know the exact amount.

[Crede]

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

The definition of sustained is "continuing for an extended period or without interruption".

Landing one Ice Strike per mob on average is indeed the definition of sustained DPS.

This is why you can create a solo video mimicking a group situation. You just need to math out how many offensive spells you can cast on a mob per fight. This is just a question of average fight duration, average time between pulls, and respawn timers.



Let me ask you this. If DPS is a primary factor for your play preferences, Wouldn't Enchanter/Enchanter/Enchanter/Shaman be better since the Shaman is providing DPS, while a Cleric is not?

I clearly showed in my video that the Shaman can do all of the tanking for the pets, so you don't need CH to keep the pets up. This means in this group the Shaman is providing at least 30 DPS over a Cleric. DPS will be a bit higher with buffing the Charmed pets with Avatar, and having the pets attack from behind for the entire fight. I just haven't parsed that yet to know the exact amount.

It’s funny and also embarrassing to watch you cherry pick quotes to try to win an argument.

“I sustained dps”. “Solo dps = group dps, I debunked you fools! Muahah.”

You’ve just shown us that shamans are shit tier group dps, which we already know. And people would rather take cleric heals. It’s safer than torpor, and you also get rez, aego, and aoe stun. Better overall utility. So shaman loses to a cleric in heals. And shaman loses to a mage in dps by a large margin. This is a 4 man group, so we don’t have to settle for shaman inferiority. We can pick the best of the best.

It’s really that simple, I’m not sure why you think shamans have to fit into every group composition just because they’re good soloers.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

It’s funny and also embarrassing to watch you cherry pick quotes to try to win an argument.

“I sustained dps”. “Solo dps = group dps, I debunked you fools! Muahah.”

You’ve just shown us that shamans are shit tier group dps, which we already know. And people would rather take cleric heals. It’s safer than torpor, and you also get rez, aego, and aoe stun. Better overall utility. So shaman loses to a cleric in heals. And shaman loses to a mage in dps by a large margin. This is a 4 man group, so we don’t have to settle for shaman inferiority. We can pick the best of the best.

It’s really that simple, I’m not sure why you think shamans have to fit into every group composition just because they’re good soloers.

A lot of random accusations with no merit. Still no evidence of any kind to back up your claims.

People can see the hundreds of pages of trolling wasn't worth it, considering it was trivial to show that you can use solo videos to mimic group situations when determining class DPS. The trolling is what was embarrassing here.

The only people trying to force a class into every composition are the people claiming you cannot be efficient unless you pick a Cleric. They are doing this without evidence, and have yet to provide any. I am not claiming Cleric is a bad pick here, nor am I forcing people to pick Shaman. This group is not doing content that requires a Warrior discing, it doesn't have a Warrior.

[Ripqozko]

DSM is the new face of kittens, I feel kinda bad for them.

[Vexenu]

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

I clearly showed in my video that the Shaman can do all of the tanking for the pets, so you don't need CH to keep the pets up. This means in this group the Shaman is providing at least 30 DPS over a Cleric. DPS will be a bit higher with buffing the Charmed pets with Avatar, and having the pets attack from behind for the entire fight. I just haven't parsed that yet to know the exact amount.

If you want to talk about a Shaman Torpor tanking, slowing, healing and pulling like you did in that video, that's a different conversation than a Shaman DPSing. Obviously a Shaman can do those things well. But a Shaman cannot do those things and also DPS at the same time. Casting one nuke per mob is NOT sustained DPS by any reasonable definition. It's the exact reason why nobody invites Wizards to their leveling groups: because even at low levels, casting one nuke per mob is very poor DPS, and this already woeful DPS gets even worse as you level and mob HP increases. The absolute best DPS you can maintain as a Shaman will be from JBB spam + pet, which is around 47 sustained DPS. And the moment you start casting other spells like canni, Torpor, slow, etc... that DPS goes straight into the toilet, because the 32 DPS of the JBB spam is doing the bulk of the work.

A theoretical Enc/Enc/Enc/Shm group with the Shaman tanking could work fine at 60, but would be MUCH weaker from 1-59 and until the Shaman is raid geared and has Torpor. Conversely, a group with a Cleric has access to CH from level 39 on, and the Cleric requires basically no gear to be effective.

The Necro/Ench you trioed with in your video would have done just as well with a skilled 60 Cleric supporting them. Plenty of healing, stuns on charm breaks, can even toss in some undead nukes. They also would have done basically as well with a 55 Cleric supporting them. But if your Shaman was level 55, guess what? It would have been SHIT, because you rely entirely on Torpor for your strategy to be even marginally effective.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

A theoretical Enc/Enc/Enc/Shm group with the Shaman tanking could work fine at 60.

You seem to be agreeing with me then. I have always been talking about the four man group at level 60. I don't see the benefit of min/maxing the group from 1-59 since it is easy to level to 60 with a four man group, unless you do something odd like four Rogues. You want to build your group around what you want to do at level 60. If you are the type of player that never gets to 60, this thread isn't as relevant. You can level quickly with 4 Mages, and stop in your 50s or where-ever you typically end up stopping if you just want to play with friends and not worry about end game content.

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

but would be MUCH weaker from 1-59 and until the Shaman is raid geared and has Torpor. Conversely, a group with a Cleric has access to CH from level 39 on, and the Cleric requires basically no gear to be effective.

I disagree here. The Shaman only needs Torpor, they don't need raid gear to Torpor Tank. Enchanter spells are expensive as well, so the group is planning on buying quite a few expensive spells anyway.

Also, people don't really think about the math of CH at lower levels. Here is a post I made in a different thread:

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

Let me put it another way. Looking at my parses, my 51 Monk took 1200 damage from fighting a level 42 guard. My Monk has 1800 HP, so that would have been CH'ed. That means CH is a 3 to 1 mana ratio in this scenario.

With https://wiki.project1999.com/Tagar%27s_Insects , a 51 Shaman is slowing for around 45% at 125 mana. That reduces the 1200 damage to 660 damage. If you spend 250 mana on Superior Healing, that reduces the total damage taken to 136. At level 52 with Regrowth, that 136 is reduced to zero if the fight lasted a minute.

For 395 mana (including 20 mana a minute for Regrowth) the Shaman mitigated the same damage as the CH. CH costs 400 mana.

Realistically a Cleric isn't even doing that much better than a Shaman until the group is in it's 50s in terms of healing. CH efficiency is dependent on max HP, which a lower level player or lower level charmed pet has less of.

[Vexenu]

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

You seem to be agreeing with me then. I have always been talking about the four man group at level 60.

Ok, but if you're optimizing the group just for performance at 60, then the comp should be Enc/Enc/Clr/Wiz, as fortior pointed out. The two Enchanters provide tanking, slowing, pulling and sustained DPS, the Cleric provides healing, buffing and rezzing, and the Wizard provides snare, ports (incl. to Hate) and massive burst DPS for named (as well as sustained mana-free 56 DPS if we assume a Rend Robe).

Since you won't be grinding XP at 60, you aren't really interested in a theoretical "kills per hour" group efficiency rating, rather, you would logically be more interested in a "how many valuable targets can we safely and reliably kill per play session" rating. The Wizard greatly enhances the latter rating with his ports, snare and burst DPS, while the Shaman adds basically nothing.

In conclusion, we can thus safely say that:

1-59 you'd want Enc/Enc/Clr/Mag or Nec (tossup depending on player preference/zone choice/etc...)

60 you'd want Enc/Enc/Clr/Wiz

The question has now been officially settled and the thread can be closed. DSM, you may return to Oggok.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Ok, but if you're optimizing the group just for performance at 60, then the comp should be Enc/Enc/Clr/Wiz, as fortior pointed out. The two Enchanters provide tanking, slowing, pulling and sustained DPS, the Cleric provides healing, buffing and rezzing, and the Wizard provides snare, ports (incl. to Hate) and massive burst DPS for named (as well as sustained mana-free 56 DPS if we assume a Rend Robe).

Since you won't be grinding XP at 60, you aren't really interested in a theoretical "kills per hour" group efficiency rating, rather, you would logically be more interested in a "how many valuable targets can we safely and reliably kill per play session" rating. The Wizard greatly enhances the latter rating with his ports, snare and burst DPS, while the Shaman adds basically nothing.

In conclusion, we can thus safely say that:

1-59 you'd want Enc/Enc/Clr/Mag or Nec (tossup depending on player preference/zone choice/etc...)

60 you'd want Enc/Enc/Clr/Wiz

The question has now been officially settled and the thread can be closed. DSM, you may return to Oggok.

Shaman is better in Fortior's "solo farm crew" idea because the Shaman with Torpor can solo something like A4 when there are no duo targets available to snipe. With a Cleric you would be forced to have a Cleric/Enchanter or Cleric/Wizard duo, so you can't spread out as much. Having a Shaman is much more flexible. I can't think of anything that a Cleric/Enchanter duo could do that a Shaman/Enchanter duo could not do at 60. The Shaman's strength at soloing is a bigger factor in the "solo farm crew" idea.

You would want Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard for the level 60 "solo farm crew".

If you never plan on getting to level 60, group composition doesn't matter as much. Four Mages will level quickly if you are worried about leveling speed, for example.