Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Troxx]

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

It forced DSM to (once again) shift goalposts and arguments. He went from "Shamans do almost the same damage as mages" then realizing mages do way more cause of those logs and decided "More DPS is completely irrelevant unless….

More or less this.

All the good information and discussion can be found in the first few pages of this thread. It really boiled down to whether or not a group wanted redundant utility or whether they wanted to just kill things faster. DSM tried to make the case that shamans were perfectly good dps. His napkin math showed they were just as good or close but over time were actually better or equal while also bringing utility thusly implying shamans are the clear cut 4th spot winner.

The great dps “debate”:

-We were presented logs of him soloing a level 40 Jin shaman frog (literally the weakest mob in the zone). This was not relevant to the topic.
-then we got some napkin math about med rates, nukes per hour … you name it …
-We were later gifted yet another solo rot/dot fight of him and his pet on a zone in golem. Again … not relevant to the discussion.
-we watched him misinterpret parses given to him. Claiming I was nuking 4-8 times (lol) for 825 per pop per fight assuming that all “hits” from my mage were nukes and not remembering my pet nukes.
-we watched him ignore breakout fights showing a LOW of high 70s dps and a HIGH of over 175dps with the average floating 100-120 which was right where I said my non-epic, non-focus, no clicky boots mage would be in a fast moving group.
-we later saw Ally’s 58 mage put up similar numbers (granted we don’t know what kind of group she was in but I digress…)
-WE NEVER SAW DSM ONCE JOIN A FAST MOVING, HIGH DPS GROUP TO SHOW HOW HIS SHAMAN COULD PERFORM … only napkin math.

Side tangents we saw:

-a couple of dozen pages of him talking about how enchanters can’t really solo effectively until level 32, going so far as to say his no regen mildly twinked warrior at 27ish could do more dps than an unhasted level 17-18 charm pet as evidence that enchanters don’t solo well after they get charm (lol). We were given single fights for each. We pointed out that the charm pet was 10ish levels lower than his warrior, unhasted, and ignored the fact that done properly an enchanter can chain solo with no down time while the warrior will eventually have to stop. It’s a shame he felt the need to stack odds so aggressively to try and prove something we all know is BS. Ironically this side tangent dozens of pages in length was not even relevant.
-several more dozen pages involving this theoretical group having a pocket cleric to log in as needed to rationalize having the shaman in the group (lol wtf?)

The focus of discussion has flipped so often it’s hard to keep track. Goalposts are constantly moving and any time hard reality slaps an autist in the face there is shameless redirection or attempts to flat out ignore data not consistent with an autist’s agenda. In 23 years of playing this game and haunting forums I have NEVER seen anything as hilariously obtuse as this thread.

This really is simple. Any 4 man best caster group will have at a minimum a cleric and an enchanter. Charm is so overpowered that the obvious 3rd choice is another enchanter. This leaves one spot left with 4 possible choices.

A). Choice A is a 4th enchanter. Most dps. Some added risk. No additional anything but yes the most dps. As a cleric in this group I might go a little nutty having 3 potential targets to blast heal and 3 pets that will also eventually need a heal but if played well the enchanters should have any pet break on lockdown immediately.

B). Choice B is a mage who brings additional value of malo debuffs for pets, CoTH, pet haste masks, DS, a beefy pet to stand in the event charms break or simply to do great dps and nuke dps potential which is always welcome and never wasted because it isn’t a dot. As has been shown already, a good mage is a respectable 100-120 dps at the high end (more with pet focus, epic, and/or Velk boots). That is strong dps and honestly not far behind a high end quadding, hasted pet. It’s as strong or close to as strong as a standard “safe” xp group pet hasted or quadding. Strong dps, no added risk, additional perks added (malo likely the best of them)

C). Choice C is a necromancer who brings additional value of FD, backup rez, undead charm potential, additional pet which isn’t bad for the same reasons mage pet isn’t bad, ok-ish nukes and personal dps (they aren’t efficient but lich is some awesome mana regen). On top of that they bring some redundancy in that they have a good Cc tool kit and can heal pretty well (but the group doesn’t need it). On the whole a decent add for dps alone with summon pet and personal nukes but with utility that ISNT redundant and adds palpable value.

D). Choice D is a shaman. Shamans add value with malo. They have the worst pet option with low dps but it can take a few hits. They can nuke to add some dps but not efficient, lower impact hits and longer cast times. Mediocre dps when trying hard. They do have an expansive toolkit but this is where the redundancy kicks in. You won’t need the heals, slows, roots. Dots are worthless as stuff will die to fast. They do bring a measure of increased safety but with a cleric and TWO enchanters … how much safer can you get?? So yeah. Poor to mediocre dps. Maybe good in short burst of chain nuking but that still falls behind B or C. Tons of utility that unfortunately … is not unique to what the group already has other than malo.

I will close by quoting my very first post in this thread below. I still stand by it.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

More or less this.

All the good information and discussion can be found in the first few pages of this thread. It really boiled down to whether or not a group wanted redundant utility or whether they wanted to just kill things faster. DSM tried to make the case that shamans were perfectly good dps. His napkin math showed they were just as good or close but over time were actually better or equal while also bringing utility thusly implying shamans are the clear cut 4th spot winner.

The great dps “debate”:

-We were presented logs of him soloing a level 40 Jin shaman frog (literally the weakest mob in the zone). This was not relevant to the topic.
-then we got some napkin math about med rates, nukes per hour … you name it …
-We were later gifted yet another solo rot/dot fight of him and his pet on a zone in golem. Again … not relevant to the discussion.
-we watched him misinterpret parses given to him. Claiming I was nuking 4-8 times (lol) for 825 per pop per fight assuming that all “hits” from my mage were nukes and not remembering my pet nukes.
-we watched him ignore breakout fights showing a LOW of high 70s dps and a HIGH of over 175dps with the average floating 100-120 which was right where I said my non-epic, non-focus, no clicky boots mage would be in a fast moving group.
-we later saw Ally’s 58 mage put up similar numbers (granted we don’t know what kind of group she was in but I digress…)
-WE NEVER SAW DSM ONCE JOIN A FAST MOVING, HIGH DPS GROUP TO SHOW HOW HIS SHAMAN COULD PERFORM … only napkin math.

Side tangents we saw:

-a couple of dozen pages of him talking about how enchanters can’t really solo effectively until level 32, going so far as to say his no regen mildly twinked warrior at 27ish could do more dps than an unhasted level 17-18 charm pet as evidence that enchanters don’t solo well after they get charm (lol). We were given single fights for each. We pointed out that the charm pet was 10ish levels lower than his warrior, unhasted, and ignored the fact that done properly an enchanter can chain solo with no down time while the warrior will eventually have to stop. It’s a shame he felt the need to stack odds so aggressively to try and prove something we all know is BS. Ironically this side tangent dozens of pages in length was not even relevant.
-several more dozen pages involving this theoretical group having a pocket cleric to log in as needed to rationalize having the shaman in the group (lol wtf?)

The focus of discussion has flipped so often it’s hard to keep track. Goalposts are constantly moving and any time hard reality slaps an autist in the face there is shameless redirection or attempts to flat out ignore data not consistent with an autist’s agenda. In 23 years of playing this game and haunting forums I have NEVER seen anything as hilariously obtuse as this thread.

This really is simple. Any 4 man best caster group will have at a minimum a cleric and an enchanter. Charm is so overpowered that the obvious 3rd choice is another enchanter. This leaves one spot left with 4 possible choices.

A). Choice A is a 4th enchanter. Most dps. Some added risk. No additional anything but yes the most dps. As a cleric in this group I might go a little nutty having 3 potential targets to blast heal and 3 pets that will also eventually need a heal but if played well the enchanters should have any pet break on lockdown immediately.

B). Choice B is a mage who brings additional value of malo debuffs for pets, CoTH, pet haste masks, DS, a beefy pet to stand in the event charms break or simply to do great dps and nuke dps potential which is always welcome and never wasted because it isn’t a dot. As has been shown already, a good mage is a respectable 100-120 dps at the high end (more with pet focus, epic, and/or Velk boots). That is strong dps and honestly not far behind a high end quadding, hasted pet. It’s as strong or close to as strong as a standard “safe” xp group pet hasted or quadding. Strong dps, no added risk, additional perks added (malo likely the best of them)

C). Choice C is a necromancer who brings additional value of FD, backup rez, undead charm potential, additional pet which isn’t bad for the same reasons mage pet isn’t bad, ok-ish nukes and personal dps (they aren’t efficient but lich is some awesome mana regen). On top of that they bring some redundancy in that they have a good Cc tool kit and can heal pretty well (but the group doesn’t need it). On the whole a decent add for dps alone with summon pet and personal nukes but with utility that ISNT redundant and adds palpable value.

D). Choice D is a shaman. Shamans add value with malo. They have the worst pet option with low dps but it can take a few hits. They can nuke to add some dps but not efficient, lower impact hits and longer cast times. Mediocre dps when trying hard. They do have an expansive toolkit but this is where the redundancy kicks in. You won’t need the heals, slows, roots. Dots are worthless as stuff will die to fast. They do bring a measure of increased safety but with a cleric and TWO enchanters … how much safer can you get?? So yeah. Poor to mediocre dps. Maybe good in short burst of chain nuking but that still falls behind B or C. Tons of utility that unfortunately … is not unique to what the group already has other than malo.

I will close by quoting my very first post in this thread below. I still stand by it.

This is such a bad take.

What really happened is I provided solid evidence of DPS numbers based on the data you provided, and then you got really angry and proceeded to troll/insult/meme for 200 posts, like a child.

Allishia's data is from an Epic Pet, while yours is not. And it still doesn't matter in the end due to how little time it saves per kill.

You haven't shown why you think any of my data is invalid, or will change in a group. You have made the claim my data is invalid, so you have to prove it. You won't though, because you know the data won't change.

[Crede]

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

More or less this.

All the good information and discussion can be found in the first few pages of this thread. It really boiled down to whether or not a group wanted redundant utility or whether they wanted to just kill things faster. DSM tried to make the case that shamans were perfectly good dps. His napkin math showed they were just as good or close but over time were actually better or equal while also bringing utility thusly implying shamans are the clear cut 4th spot winner.

The great dps “debate”:

-We were presented logs of him soloing a level 40 Jin shaman frog (literally the weakest mob in the zone). This was not relevant to the topic.
-then we got some napkin math about med rates, nukes per hour … you name it …
-We were later gifted yet another solo rot/dot fight of him and his pet on a zone in golem. Again … not relevant to the discussion.
-we watched him misinterpret parses given to him. Claiming I was nuking 4-8 times (lol) for 825 per pop per fight assuming that all “hits” from my mage were nukes and not remembering my pet nukes.
-we watched him ignore breakout fights showing a LOW of high 70s dps and a HIGH of over 175dps with the average floating 100-120 which was right where I said my non-epic, non-focus, no clicky boots mage would be in a fast moving group.
-we later saw Ally’s 58 mage put up similar numbers (granted we don’t know what kind of group she was in but I digress…)
-WE NEVER SAW DSM ONCE JOIN A FAST MOVING, HIGH DPS GROUP TO SHOW HOW HIS SHAMAN COULD PERFORM … only napkin math.

Side tangents we saw:

-a couple of dozen pages of him talking about how enchanters can’t really solo effectively until level 32, going so far as to say his no regen mildly twinked warrior at 27ish could do more dps than an unhasted level 17-18 charm pet as evidence that enchanters don’t solo well after they get charm (lol). We were given single fights for each. We pointed out that the charm pet was 10ish levels lower than his warrior, unhasted, and ignored the fact that done properly an enchanter can chain solo with no down time while the warrior will eventually have to stop. It’s a shame he felt the need to stack odds so aggressively to try and prove something we all know is BS. Ironically this side tangent dozens of pages in length was not even relevant.
-several more dozen pages involving this theoretical group having a pocket cleric to log in as needed to rationalize having the shaman in the group (lol wtf?)

The focus of discussion has flipped so often it’s hard to keep track. Goalposts are constantly moving and any time hard reality slaps an autist in the face there is shameless redirection or attempts to flat out ignore data not consistent with an autist’s agenda. In 23 years of playing this game and haunting forums I have NEVER seen anything as hilariously obtuse as this thread.

This really is simple. Any 4 man best caster group will have at a minimum a cleric and an enchanter. Charm is so overpowered that the obvious 3rd choice is another enchanter. This leaves one spot left with 4 possible choices.

A). Choice A is a 4th enchanter. Most dps. Some added risk. No additional anything but yes the most dps. As a cleric in this group I might go a little nutty having 3 potential targets to blast heal and 3 pets that will also eventually need a heal but if played well the enchanters should have any pet break on lockdown immediately.

B). Choice B is a mage who brings additional value of malo debuffs for pets, CoTH, pet haste masks, DS, a beefy pet to stand in the event charms break or simply to do great dps and nuke dps potential which is always welcome and never wasted because it isn’t a dot. As has been shown already, a good mage is a respectable 100-120 dps at the high end (more with pet focus, epic, and/or Velk boots). That is strong dps and honestly not far behind a high end quadding, hasted pet. It’s as strong or close to as strong as a standard “safe” xp group pet hasted or quadding. Strong dps, no added risk, additional perks added (malo likely the best of them)

C). Choice C is a necromancer who brings additional value of FD, backup rez, undead charm potential, additional pet which isn’t bad for the same reasons mage pet isn’t bad, ok-ish nukes and personal dps (they aren’t efficient but lich is some awesome mana regen). On top of that they bring some redundancy in that they have a good Cc tool kit and can heal pretty well (but the group doesn’t need it). On the whole a decent add for dps alone with summon pet and personal nukes but with utility that ISNT redundant and adds palpable value.

D). Choice D is a shaman. Shamans add value with malo. They have the worst pet option with low dps but it can take a few hits. They can nuke to add some dps but not efficient, lower impact hits and longer cast times. Mediocre dps when trying hard. They do have an expansive toolkit but this is where the redundancy kicks in. You won’t need the heals, slows, roots. Dots are worthless as stuff will die to fast. They do bring a measure of increased safety but with a cleric and TWO enchanters … how much safer can you get?? So yeah. Poor to mediocre dps. Maybe good in short burst of chain nuking but that still falls behind B or C. Tons of utility that unfortunately … is not unique to what the group already has other than malo.

I will close by quoting my very first post in this thread below. I still stand by it.

Great summary, and an accurate presentation of options available to anybody in this situation. Thanks for not muddying up the thread trying to suggest leveling a 5th alt either, since this thread is specifically about 4s.

I'd personally choose Cleric/Enchanter/Mage/Necro, which covers everything. It might not have the same amount of dps as multiple enc's, but I like that it gives you basically everything, while still being able to obliterate 99.9% of content. To me repeating classes is just boring.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Great summary, and an accurate presentation of options available to anybody in this situation. Thanks for not muddying up the thread trying to suggest leveling a 5th alt either, since this thread is specifically about 4s.

It's a poor summary, skewed by inaccurate ideas about how data and DPS works. Troxx just wants to "win", not have a discussion, and his 200+ troll/insult/meme posts are clear enough evidence.

I still find it amusing that talking about basic facts of the game is considered muddying the waters, when OP didn't specify you couldn't have a pocket cleric.

[PlsNoBan]

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

More or less this.

All the good information and discussion can be found in the first few pages of this thread. It really boiled down to whether or not a group wanted redundant utility or whether they wanted to just kill things faster. DSM tried to make the case that shamans were perfectly good dps. His napkin math showed they were just as good or close but over time were actually better or equal while also bringing utility thusly implying shamans are the clear cut 4th spot winner.

The great dps “debate”:

-We were presented logs of him soloing a level 40 Jin shaman frog (literally the weakest mob in the zone). This was not relevant to the topic.
-then we got some napkin math about med rates, nukes per hour … you name it …
-We were later gifted yet another solo rot/dot fight of him and his pet on a zone in golem. Again … not relevant to the discussion.
-we watched him misinterpret parses given to him. Claiming I was nuking 4-8 times (lol) for 825 per pop per fight assuming that all “hits” from my mage were nukes and not remembering my pet nukes.
-we watched him ignore breakout fights showing a LOW of high 70s dps and a HIGH of over 175dps with the average floating 100-120 which was right where I said my non-epic, non-focus, no clicky boots mage would be in a fast moving group.
-we later saw Ally’s 58 mage put up similar numbers (granted we don’t know what kind of group she was in but I digress…)
-WE NEVER SAW DSM ONCE JOIN A FAST MOVING, HIGH DPS GROUP TO SHOW HOW HIS SHAMAN COULD PERFORM … only napkin math.

Side tangents we saw:

-a couple of dozen pages of him talking about how enchanters can’t really solo effectively until level 32, going so far as to say his no regen mildly twinked warrior at 27ish could do more dps than an unhasted level 17-18 charm pet as evidence that enchanters don’t solo well after they get charm (lol). We were given single fights for each. We pointed out that the charm pet was 10ish levels lower than his warrior, unhasted, and ignored the fact that done properly an enchanter can chain solo with no down time while the warrior will eventually have to stop. It’s a shame he felt the need to stack odds so aggressively to try and prove something we all know is BS. Ironically this side tangent dozens of pages in length was not even relevant.
-several more dozen pages involving this theoretical group having a pocket cleric to log in as needed to rationalize having the shaman in the group (lol wtf?)

The focus of discussion has flipped so often it’s hard to keep track. Goalposts are constantly moving and any time hard reality slaps an autist in the face there is shameless redirection or attempts to flat out ignore data not consistent with an autist’s agenda. In 23 years of playing this game and haunting forums I have NEVER seen anything as hilariously obtuse as this thread.

This really is simple. Any 4 man best caster group will have at a minimum a cleric and an enchanter. Charm is so overpowered that the obvious 3rd choice is another enchanter. This leaves one spot left with 4 possible choices.

A). Choice A is a 4th enchanter. Most dps. Some added risk. No additional anything but yes the most dps. As a cleric in this group I might go a little nutty having 3 potential targets to blast heal and 3 pets that will also eventually need a heal but if played well the enchanters should have any pet break on lockdown immediately.

B). Choice B is a mage who brings additional value of malo debuffs for pets, CoTH, pet haste masks, DS, a beefy pet to stand in the event charms break or simply to do great dps and nuke dps potential which is always welcome and never wasted because it isn’t a dot. As has been shown already, a good mage is a respectable 100-120 dps at the high end (more with pet focus, epic, and/or Velk boots). That is strong dps and honestly not far behind a high end quadding, hasted pet. It’s as strong or close to as strong as a standard “safe” xp group pet hasted or quadding. Strong dps, no added risk, additional perks added (malo likely the best of them)

C). Choice C is a necromancer who brings additional value of FD, backup rez, undead charm potential, additional pet which isn’t bad for the same reasons mage pet isn’t bad, ok-ish nukes and personal dps (they aren’t efficient but lich is some awesome mana regen). On top of that they bring some redundancy in that they have a good Cc tool kit and can heal pretty well (but the group doesn’t need it). On the whole a decent add for dps alone with summon pet and personal nukes but with utility that ISNT redundant and adds palpable value.

D). Choice D is a shaman. Shamans add value with malo. They have the worst pet option with low dps but it can take a few hits. They can nuke to add some dps but not efficient, lower impact hits and longer cast times. Mediocre dps when trying hard. They do have an expansive toolkit but this is where the redundancy kicks in. You won’t need the heals, slows, roots. Dots are worthless as stuff will die to fast. They do bring a measure of increased safety but with a cleric and TWO enchanters … how much safer can you get?? So yeah. Poor to mediocre dps. Maybe good in short burst of chain nuking but that still falls behind B or C. Tons of utility that unfortunately … is not unique to what the group already has other than malo.

I will close by quoting my very first post in this thread below. I still stand by it.

This is a fantastic and accurate summation of the events of this thread so far. Also ROFL at DSM saying the question doesn't specifically say you can't have a pocket cleric. It also doesn't say you can't have an entire raid out of group assisting you. Is that the next goalpost moving argument? How about hacking the game to boost shaman DPS? The question doesn't specifically say you can't

[cyxthryth]

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

Also ROFL at DSM saying the question doesn't specifically say you can't have a pocket cleric. It also doesn't say you can't have an entire raid out of group assisting you. Is that the next goalpost moving argument? How about hacking the game to boost shaman DPS? The question doesn't specifically say you can't

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

[Tewaz]

Guys, please log off and quit fighting over 23 year old elf quest.

[Crede]

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that DSM refuses to have a discussion with cyxthryth? He claims he's a troll, but honestly just think he's afraid to play his forum chess game with him because he doesn't know how to respond to his rebuttals.

The 2 goalpost shifts by DSM(5th pocket cleric & DPS breakpoint) pretty much confirms the fact that shamans are useless(they can't cheal/rez & you can hit the dps breakpoint without them. They really bring nothing to the table, this is why you don't really see enchanter/cleric/shaman trios, the enchanter/cleric knows they just don't need a shaman.

There's honestly no point in continuing to argue with him. You will not convince him otherwise, the majority of us know the truth.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that DSM refuses to have a discussion with cyxthryth? He claims he's a troll, but honestly just think he's afraid to play his forum chess game with him because he doesn't know how to respond to his rebuttals.

The 2 goalpost shifts by DSM(5th pocket cleric & DPS breakpoint) pretty much confirms the fact that shamans are useless(they can't cheal/rez & you can hit the dps breakpoint without them. They really bring nothing to the table, this is why you don't really see enchanter/cleric/shaman trios, the enchanter/cleric knows they just don't need a shaman.

There's honestly no point in continuing to argue with him. You will not convince him otherwise, the majority of us know the truth.

You can look at cyxthryth's post history. It is all just literal nonsense. It is not anywhere close to a normal discussion. His first post in this thread was him saying he was angry at me for my opinion in another thread. It is clear he isn't here to have a discussion. All of his posts on this forum are just copy/pasted nonsense that he thinks is a mimicry of me. There is a reason why literally nobody engages with him, even the other posters who are against me.

Pocket clerics are not moving the goal posts, since nobody said that was a limitation. I am sorry you think simply talking about facts in Everquest is moving goalposts. That simply isn't true.

DPS Breakpoints have been my argument since page 2:

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

The Enchanters are providing the vast majority of the DPS via charmed pets. The Mage pet isn't doing that much hehe. Shamans can do fine DPS-wise.

Shaman pet has 2400 HP with FoS, and you can Torpor it. That is decently tanky. A Water pet only has 2500 HP hehe. It is providing security just fine, plus all the Shaman healing/slows/buffs.

I am not considering Epic Pets, because that is just really rare hehe. There are a LOT more Torpor Shamans than Epic Mages.

I didn't think I would have to explain how DPS worked on page 2, so I thought this would be a simple enough explanation. Clearly I was wrong.

To your point about trios, you typically see something like Shaman/Enchanter/Monk, there is no cleric at all. Shamans are generally preferred in Duos and Trios because their extra utility is more useful, and CH isn't needed for most content.

Shaman doesn't magically become less useful when you go from a trio to four people. That is the thing I find the most amazing. People will agree Shamans are great in duos and trios, but suddenly they offer nothing in four man groups. It is some great mental gymnastics to watch.

[cyxthryth]

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

You can look at cyxthryth's post history.

Any poster can look at any other poster's post history on this thread/these forums if they wish hehe.

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

It is all just literal nonsense.

The problem is your post would seem to indicate that you believe that what I am posting is "all just literal nonsense", which is is objectively false, and I am not sure why you have repeatedly made this - objectively false - statement about my posts multiple times in this thread (as evidenced by the posts in it / your post history).

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

It is not anywhere close to a normal discussion.

I continue to to attempt to engage with you in a - normal, and civil - discussion, but you consistently/repeatedly ignore my posts & dodge the questions I pose directly to you hehe. That is not anywhere close to the behavoir of someone who is interested in participating in a normal discussion, and would seemingly be indicative that you cannot back up your position(s) with relevant, factual data, and therefore are unable to even make attempts to refute the irrefutable facts - which you cannot refute - that I have stated, nor able to answer the questions I have asked you (directly) without presumably betraying/exposing/revealing that you have been backed into a corner "arguing" from bad faith (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument). [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

His first post in this thread was him saying he was angry at me for my opinion in another thread.

Quite the contrary! I engaged this discussion by pointing out that you were - as you had done in the past - simply calling others and/or their posts "silly" in an apparent attempt to dismiss them, as you have seemingly attempted - and seemingly continue to attempt to do - with me and my posts in this thread hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] This really isn't hard. I have linked my first post to you multiple times. I will post a full Quote of it here. Please feel free to point out anything I that I have stated in the below Quote that you believe is incorrect, and I am happy to civilly discuss with you hehe.

My first post on this thread which was posted on Page 74 in response to this Quote:

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

Nah, that's going to be Troxx and friends complaining because they don't have good data, and can't accept the truth or basic math.

The thread should have been over here: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=638 , but the truth has thrown them into a rage they can't get out of, and must try and hide the truth with silly troll posts.

was as follows:

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

"Silly troll posts" huh? I see where this is going. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You called me "silly" when you were backed into a corner by my replies to you on the below thread too, and you stopped replying (like a little bitch): https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...401629&page=37.
Your concession in silence was accepted.

I see you haven't quite given up on this current thread just yet though. *chuckle* Take as much time as you need. You will certainly move on to hyper-focus on another thread/topic in which you'll continue to demonstrate your seemingly-apparent autism to all neurotypicals who encounter your posts.
I can only speak for myself, but your inevitable concession in silence for this thread is accepted in advance. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

It is clear he isn't here to have a discussion.]

You have provided zero evidence that it is clear that I am not here to have a discussion. In irrefutable fact - which you cannot refute - I have made my intention to continue engaging in a civil discussion with you known, via multiple (direct) posts/replies to your posts.

Do you intend to imply that you believe you are making it "more clear" that you are here to have a discussion (than me) by outright ignoring my posts hehe? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

All of his posts on this forum are just copy/pasted nonsense that he thinks is a mimicry of me.

It is objectively false that all of my posts on this forum are just copy/pasted nonsense that I think is a mimicry of you. The problem is that your post suggests that you believe that you stating that my posts "are just copy/pasted nonsense" means that they truly/factually are "just copy/pasted nonsense", when they are - factually/objectively - not.

Now, it certainly may be your opinion that that my posts "are just copy/pasted nonsense" - but that would simply be just that: your opinion hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

There is a reason why literally nobody engages with him, even the other posters who are against me.

It is false that literally nobody (including yourself) has engaged with me, so I am not sure why you seemingly are making that - again, false (and unsubstantiated) - claim hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

Pocket clerics are not moving the goal posts, since nobody said that was a limitation.

The problem is your post would seem to betray that you do not understand - or do fully understand, and are for some reason pretending that you do not understand - that adding a 5th "pocket" character to your "arguments" (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument) is an objective example of you moving goalposts.

The issue might be that you - seemingly - believe that you simply claiming "nobody said that was a limitation" somehow negates the fact that the context of this discussion is/was/always has been - as the title of this thread irrefutably proves - specifically/explicitly pertaining to a "4 person all caster/priest group", and therefore by attempting to bring a 5th "pocket" character into your "arguments" (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument) - you objectively moved the goalposts.

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

I am sorry you think simply talking about facts in Everquest is moving goalposts. That simply isn't true.

I am not sure why your post would seem to indicate that you believe that others think "talking about facts is moving goalposts" or that you making this - wholly irrelevant - apology has any bearing on the facts, which simply will not change based on what you think, nor how you feel hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

Clearly I was wrong.

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

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

To your point about trios, you typically see something like Shaman/Enchanter/Monk, there is no cleric at all.

The problem with your post is that it would seem to indicate/reveal/betray/expose that you (seemingly) believe that you are aware of what others "typically see", as evidenced by your Quoted post above. You have provided zero evidence to support this claim, thus it is an unsubstantiated (and probably false) claim.

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

Shamans are generally preferred in Duos and Trios because their extra utility is more useful, and CH isn't needed for most content.

The problem with your post is that it would seem to indicate/reveal/betray/expose that you (seemingly) believe that you are aware of what is "generally preferred". You have provided zero evidence to support this claim, thus it is an unsubstantiated (and probably false) claim.

In this thread you have both implied and outright stated that you have a preference for "safety", yet in what you are (apparently) claiming is the "generally preferred Duo/Trio", the healing class is a Shaman. The irrefutable fact of the matter - which you cannot refute - is that a Shaman simply has no ability to Rez a fallen groupmate. I will remind you again - attempting to account for this flaw/inability/not-safe aspect of the Shaman class, you have attmepted to move goalposts by suggesting a 4-person group can have a 5th "pocket" character assist them. Speaking strictly mathematically, 4 =/= 5, so I am not sure why you would attempt to bring this 5th person into the equation, nor why you believe doing so is not an example of you moving goalposts - when it objectively is - hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

Shaman doesn't magically become less useful when you go from a trio to four people. That is the thing I find the most amazing. People will agree Shamans are great in duos and trios, but suddenly they offer nothing in four man groups. It is some great mental gymnastics to watch.

Your post would seem to indicate/reveal/betray/expose a lack of understanding of diminishing returns, which is interesting, as your previous posts seemingly indicated you were aware of such when it pertained to DPS, and - perhaps more specifically/relevantly - when you thought it favored your "argument(s)".