Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Then why bother to continue posting to us?!

You are so bad at lying, can't you see that?

"I hold no grudges"? You're trolling. You are a troll.

The only question is why are you still posting? If you don't want to be called a troll, stop trolling. Continue the conversation in a civil manner, or stop posting. You can break the trolling loop you are in at any time. I will gladly continue the conversation when you do.

[Kich867]

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

Except, by implication of the fact we're "trolls", we seem to be. You're contradicting yourself. And what do you mean "other people reading"? Even the one person giving you the small benefit of the doubt is hardly calling for us to "stop trolling".

Do you mean the silent observers browsing this thread? That's pretty presumptuous to think that they perceive you to be anything other than a childish troll.

It's checkmate. Now stop posting, you infantile attention seeker.

Is that me? Idrc that the thread is going on or that people are shit talking, I do think its funny though that this dude's ramblings evokes such an enormous emotional response from this many people, he has to live rent free in a lot of heads.

That one dude was sitting here for like 16 hours spam refreshing so he could drop his weird copy-pasta after every single person's post. The best part about that though was, I actually went and read some of that thread he said he had backed this dude into a corner in, it was pretty fuckin cringe. The entire argument was an enormously flaccid floppy weiner of an argument.

FWIW I actually disagree with DSM though on the original topic, but more so because I think that the fourth person functionally doesn't matter. That person doesn't relevantly contribute to the groups kill speed, anything over a trio (or duo really) seems obnoxious since they would have to pull gargantuan weight for their presence to offset how much they just reduced the XP per kill, but gun to my head I'd probably argue for a druid because at least keeping enemies snared prevents them from running, they can root-rot as well if that's actually an argument, and they can teleport the group wherever they'd like to go, and evac in a worst case scenario.

So I would opt for whoever has the most value to that group outside of combat, that group will kill things too quickly for a fourth person's in-combat contribution to matter.

[Gloomlord]

Because there's no reason for this thread to go on this long. That's why I'm posting. I want you to stop this childishness, and make way for better discussions.

We've already told you that root rotting is pointless, and doesn't help the two enchanters and cleric in this hypothetical situation. Might as well group with some necromancers and other shamans in that case.

We can't continue this conversation in a civil manner, when you are a distinctly childish attention seeking troll. Come off it!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Kich867 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is that me? Idrc that the thread is going on or that people are shit talking, I do think its funny though that this dude's ramblings evokes such an enormous emotional response from this many people, he has to live rent free in a lot of heads.

That one dude was sitting here for like 16 hours spam refreshing so he could drop his weird copy-pasta after every single person's post. The best part about that though was, I actually went and read some of that thread he said he had backed this dude into a corner in, it was pretty fuckin cringe. The entire argument was an enormously flaccid floppy weiner of an argument.

FWIW I actually disagree with DSM though on the original topic, but more so because I think that the fourth person functionally doesn't matter. That person doesn't relevantly contribute to the groups kill speed, anything over a trio (or duo really) seems obnoxious since they would have to pull gargantuan weight for their presence to offset how much they just reduced the XP per kill, but gun to my head I'd probably argue for a druid because at least keeping enemies snared prevents them from running, they can root-rot as well if that's actually an argument, and they can teleport the group wherever they'd like to go, and evac in a worst case scenario.

So I would opt for whoever has the most value to that group outside of combat, that group will kill things too quickly for a fourth person's in-combat contribution to matter.

Thanks for being a calm and rational poster. I have enjoyed all of your posts. I do agree with you, once you get to a four man group it doesn't matter as much. Duos or Trios are where class compositions matter a lot more. But OP asked for our opinions on a four man group, and we obliged.

[Gloomlord]

Originally Posted by Kich867 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is that me? Idrc that the thread is going on or that people are shit talking, I do think its funny though that this dude's ramblings evokes such an enormous emotional response from this many people, he has to live rent free in a lot of heads.

That one dude was sitting here for like 16 hours spam refreshing so he could drop his weird copy-pasta after every single person's post. The best part about that though was, I actually went and read some of that thread he said he had backed this dude into a corner in, it was pretty fuckin cringe. The entire argument was an enormously flaccid floppy weiner of an argument.

FWIW I actually disagree with DSM though on the original topic, but more so because I think that the fourth person functionally doesn't matter. That person doesn't relevantly contribute to the groups kill speed, anything over a trio (or duo really) seems obnoxious since they would have to pull gargantuan weight for their presence to offset how much they just reduced the XP per kill, but gun to my head I'd probably argue for a druid because at least keeping enemies snared prevents them from running, they can root-rot as well if that's actually an argument, and they can teleport the group wherever they'd like to go, and evac in a worst case scenario.

So I would opt for whoever has the most value to that group outside of combat, that group will kill things too quickly for a fourth person's in-combat contribution to matter.

You see? That's what I meant with "small benefit of the doubt".

Maybe you think some people are going too far in their anger with him, but it's clear DSM has no idea what he's talking about.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You see? That's what I meant with "small benefit of the doubt".

Maybe you think some people are going too far in their anger with him, but it's clear DSM has no idea what he's talking about.

I could say the same thing about you, and we would be at an impasse. You are not some arbiter of the truth who gets to dismiss what other people are saying.

The difference is I have data to back up my posts, while you just keep posting in anger. You could back up your points with evidence or stop posting at any time.

[Kich867]

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

Maybe you think some people are going too far in their anger with him, but it's clear DSM has no idea what he's talking about.

I certainly don't think that, but again that has more to do with apathy. I think it has more to do with the phenomenon of when people are told they're wrong regardless of whether they are they get very defensive and agitated.

You don't actually need this dude to say he's wrong, and the insistence on turning your wheels to get them to say so is dumb and fruitless.

Most importantly though, I give exactly zero shits if DSM knows what they're talking about or not. I cannot describe to you how easy it is to look at someone who you think is wrong, know for certain you are correct about something, and not engage that person. You don't need their validation and you don't need to assert how correct you are, especially over something as fucking stupid as this.

You might say, "Kich, that's exactly what DSM is doing" -- and that's true, but it very clearly comes from a different place.

I think you're all still responding because you're more bothered that DSM said you're wrong than he would be bothered by being wrong. I think, demonstrably, the dude just likes talking on forums and debating things. And so this is an unbalanced conversation that you all could've avoided had you seen DSM disagree with you and you just go: "Yeah no that's fuckin crazy" and then not respond to the thread anymore.

[cyxthryth]

Originally Posted by Kich867 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is that me? Idrc that the thread is going on or that people are shit talking, I do think its funny though that this dude's ramblings evokes such an enormous emotional response from this many people, he has to live rent free in a lot of heads.

That one dude was sitting here for like 16 hours spam refreshing so he could drop his weird copy-pasta after every single person's post. The best part about that though was, I actually went and read some of that thread he said he had backed this dude into a corner in, it was pretty fuckin cringe. The entire argument was an enormously flaccid floppy weiner of an argument.

I simply was (and am) communicating similarly to DSM's posts & posting mannerisms. I can't help how others feel about it, and I apologize if you are (hypocritically) trying to discredit/embarrass/ridicule (whatever you are trying to do) me for posting that way, but not DSM hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Flaccid floppy weiner of an argument" lol? Nope. No "argument" here! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] I have merely stated facts and posed simple questions, and I can't help it if you have misunderstood my factual statements or are (intentionally or otherwise) misconstruing your true understanding of them.

I also simply can't help it if the facts I state and questions I pose backed your likely friend/guildy/alt DSM into a corner of silent concession (in two threads hehe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]). That thread is still available, and I am happy to engage in a civil discussion with you about what you believe I've stated in that thread was not factual hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Can you challenge the actual content of the posts in the thread? DSM couldn't - I present that previous thread as evidence (he called me silly & stopped replying hehe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]).

[Kich867]

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

I am happy to engage in a civil discussion with you

What's everyone's boner with being civil all about? I'd be happy to engage with you in an uncivil discussion.

You were being fuckin dumb in that other thread and you never had much of an argument. Your facts were pointless because the entire conversation was unbelievably stupid between the both of you.

Being endlessly rustled by some nerd on the internet isn't healthy. You're (probably) an adult, get a grip on your life and your self esteem, this dude's validation isn't fuckin worth it pal.

You don't need it.

[PlsNoBan]

Imagine thinking there's droves of silent readers of this dumpster fire thread and they're reading DSM's 500+ posts and going "Thank god someone is posting super useful and smart data so I can learn". That might be the funniest delusion DSM holds. It's almost funnier than saying warriors solo better than enchanters with a straight face and defending that retarded point for like a dozen pages of people saying it's ridiculous.