Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[bcbrown]

I want to point out a couple forms of bias in your argument. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be be biased when arguing a position - I just want to take the time to emphasise that this is a subjective argument, not an objective scoring. I also want to underline that this is not the substantive argument in favor of including a cleric that you deserve, but just a few quick thoughts I wanted to jot down.

structural bias - the top-line points are all about shaman benefits, not mentioning any cleric unique abilities (as compared to shamans). No mention of stun, lull, atone, DA. This is fair for a subjective argument - but not for an objective assessment.

selective bias - level ranges provided are the ones where shamans are comparatively equal on heals. Here's an alternate perspective. From 24-29 clerics will have Greater Healing(290-300) while shamans will have Healing (100hp). Up through 51 shaman is limited to Greater Healing(270hp), while from 34 on clerics have Superior Healing (565-585) - that's double the healing per cast from 34 till 52.

redundancy bias - slows are redundant, but there's an argument about why that's still a point in favor for shamans. Stuns are redundant, but the benefits of that redundancy are dismissed.

healing metric bias - mana efficiency is not the only metric. Time efficiency matters as well.

To re-iterate, everything you wrote is perfectly reasonable as a subjective argument in favor of a position. But we've had a recurring side-discussion on whether this topic is objective or subjective and I thought it was worth noting some relevant thoughts.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I want to point out a couple forms of bias in your argument. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be be biased when arguing a position - I just want to take the time to emphasise that this is a subjective argument, not an objective scoring. I also want to underline that this is not the substantive argument in favor of including a cleric that you deserve, but just a few quick thoughts I wanted to jot down.

structural bias - the top-line points are all about shaman benefits, not mentioning any cleric unique abilities (as compared to shamans). No mention of stun, lull, atone, DA. This is fair for a subjective argument - but not for an objective assessment.

selective bias - level ranges provided are the ones where shamans are comparatively equal on heals. Here's an alternate perspective. From 24-29 clerics will have Greater Healing(290-300) while shamans will have Healing (100hp). Up through 51 shaman is limited to Greater Healing(270hp), while from 34 on clerics have Superior Healing (565-585) - that's double the healing per cast from 34 till 52.

redundancy bias - slows are redundant, but there's an argument about why that's still a point in favor for shamans. Stuns are redundant, but the benefits of that redundancy are dismissed.

healing metric bias - mana efficiency is not the only metric. Time efficiency matters as well.

To re-iterate, everything you wrote is perfectly reasonable as a subjective argument in favor of a position. But we've had a recurring side-discussion on whether this topic is objective or subjective and I thought it was worth noting some relevant thoughts.

You are incorrect about subjectivity. You cannot wave a magic wand and simply claim everything is subjective. Just like you cannot wave a magic wand and make people forget about pocket characters, root/rotting, or anything else that hurts your argument.

Your idea that everything is biased is also just an attempt to undermine what I have said, by repeating the word bias and hoping it sticks. If you want to claim everything is biased, you aren't exempt from that either.

In a game with inbalanced classes, fixed math, and fixes rules, there are objectively better and worse setups for this thread. Attempting to undermine facts and logic by claiming everything is subjective is not a valid form of debate.

My post specifically was about why Shamans are better. It is nonsense to claim that if an argument does not cover every possible scenario, it is not objective. This is just going back to your incorrect ideas about subjectivity. It is an underhanded attenmpt at undermining credibility, instead of going after the substance.

I am leaving it up to you Troxx, etc. to explain your position on Clerics. It is not my job to do your argument for you. I don't think people really care about level 24 healing efficiency to be honest. You need to name camps and scenarios where you think this will be significant enough to choose Cleric over Shaman if you think I missed something.

The only people arguing against spell redundancy are posters like Troxx. Having extra Slows, stuns, etc. is great. But you need to show why the extra cleric stun is significant enough to be a serious point in the debate. Thus far you have not.

If you want to talk about other facets of healing and give example camps where some heals are better than othere, please provide them.

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

1 throwaway line about pet CH, nothing about the DA/ae mez synergy of necro/clr, and of course pocketing. Still no reply on how pocketing a cleric works in ST but whatever. You can only come up with this stuff if you’ve never enc/clr’d

E: to explain, DSMs huge post doesn’t reveal any interest in collaboratively discussing the best 4 man group. He has a conclusion and is now repeatedly arguing for that conclusion. There’s no evenhandedness, there’s no honest pro/con list, etc.

As you can see, foritor cannot rebut any of my points either, and has thus conceded. He cannot explain why Clerics are better. You can't win a debate by saying "im disagree, therefore I win".