Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[PlsNoBan]

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

Just had an interesting thought. What if DSM was actually just an advanced chat bot algorithm being trained on elfsim forums? That would explain quite a lot. If it was programmed to never admit defeat in an argument it would just move the goalposts all the time or repeat the same stupid thing that's obviously false over and over then eventually just start copy pasting the exact same stuff word for word when it ran out of things to say.

Have we been arguing with a GPT-3 bot for 330+ pages? Did we ACTUALLY short circuit it into copy/paste mode? The way it behaves doesn't really seem human

[cyxthryth]

Reposting the current state of the discussion:

DSM has repeatedly provided copy/pastes which simply do not contain any evidence or data of his Shaman performing DPS - or any other action/activity - in an environment/context/scenario that is (or would be) relevant to the discussion; hence his copy/pastes are irrelevant to this discussion.

While DSM is - seemingly - unable or unwilling to provide relevant evidence/data that supports his many claims/statements/positions (which change when he moves the goalposts & edits his posts), I have irrefutable proof of the following, which DSM has as of yet not replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute:

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM attempting to move the goalposts by bringing a 5th "pocket" character into his "arguments" (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument) pertaining to the "Best 4 person all caster/priest group" discussion":

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

OP never said you couldn't have a pocket cleric. I am not sure why people keep thinking this is not a possible route to take. Between four people it would be trivial to level a cleric to 39. It is pretty common for people to make pocket clerics on P99.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM attempted to accuse others of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum:

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

The post history is clear. You are now including cyxthryth to try and strengthen your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum argument because you have nothing else. I find it highly amusing.

Here is my reply to DSM's attempt, in which I point out to him the irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - that DSM himself attempted - laughably - to claim (intentionally or otherwise) that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum strengthened his argument when one (1) single other person seemed to agree with him:

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

Your post would seem to betray that you are aware that you have moved goalposts, because you are now attempting (disingenuously) to validate said goalpost-moving by stating that it is objectively true that the OP's post "is general" and that this somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts" by changing the basis of the discussion (from being about 4 priests/casters, to being about 4 priests/casters plus X amount of pocket Clerics, or other pocket classes). It is not objectively true that you are "not moving the goalposts" just because you and OP both agree that the OP's post "was general" and that that somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts". That is simply you - laughably - claiming you (and OP) are correct due to argumentum ad populum hehe. This really isn't hard.

Please clarify what you mean by stating OP's post "was general"?

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM has claimed:

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

Assuming your group plays correctly, you will DPS the same way every time, the same as if you were solo.

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

I am very confident it won't change in a group scenario.

Here re is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM has also claimed:

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

in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data

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

Once you add in outside variables, that changes the DPS equation NOT because of what the class can do, but because of what other players are doing.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM's post in which he claimed Troxx's numbers were way different from Allishia's:

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

Also Allishia's numbers were way different from yours

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM's post to Allishia when they provided their initial data in which he claimed Allishia's numbers were the same as Troxx's:

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

Thanks for the data! I'll get the logs from you a bit later today. Just looking at it here, the numbers are the same as Troxx's data.

As I have repeatedly stated - it is not always clear to other posters what particular position/claim/"argument"(s) DSM is defending at any given time due to how often he has moved the goalposts & edited his posts.

For these reasons - which I have repeatedly stated - I am not sure which particular/specific belief/claim/stance/"argument"(s) DSM is currently holding/defending/"arguing"; it would be helpful if he could elaborate/clarify/specify this/these for the sake of civil discussion.

I am also not sure why DSM has continued to copy/paste his - irrelevant - data, after this exchange occured - which cannot be refuted & is visible and clear in the cleary visible post history - which DSM has as of yet not replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute:

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

The reason why I am reposting the information is because the trolls are trying to hide the information.

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

No. The content of your post seems to include a claim that "the trolls" are trying to "hide the information". The first problem is that your post would seem to indicate that you believe that information will be "hidden" if additional posts are made - that is objectively false/incorrect DSM. Even if additional posts are made after a specific post, the post history is - and will remain - clear hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now that you have been advised and/or reminded of this irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - you should not need to continue to copy/paste to make sure your posts do not get "hidden" hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am also not sure why your post(s) would seemingly indicate that you 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).

Again, DSM - of course - continues not to (directly) reply to me for some reason, and has continued to label me and/or my posts as "a troll"/"trolling", without providing the definition of "troll" / "trolling" that he is using (nor what he meant by stating that OP's post "was general"), and whilst providing zero evidence to support his claims of my being a troll/trolling.

The ball is in DSM's court if he has relevant, factual data to support his various positions/claims/"argument"(s) - and is willing to clarify which particular position/claim/argument(s) he currently holds/"argues", as they change when he moves goalposts or edits his posts - and/or if he would like to provide the definitions he is using for "troll"/"trolling", "nonsense", "silly", "vitriol", and "win"for the sake of civil discussion hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Jimjam]

Considering the duration of Bane of Nife a 42 second burn followed by 18 seconds down time to spam canny / torpor (with no other mobs in camp for pets to attrition on in that time) looks like the perfect storm for shaman burst dps but it still compares unfavourably to magician.

We’re using data from Seb/KC, right? What is the scenario the 42 second burn with no other mobs in camp meant to be modelling?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Considering the duration of Bane of Nife a 42 second burn followed by 18 seconds down time to spam canny / torpor (with no other mobs in camp for pets to attrition on in that time) looks like the perfect storm for shaman burst dps but it still compares unfavourably to magician.

We’re using data from Seb/KC, right? What is the scenario the 42 second burn with no other mobs in camp meant to be modelling?

The pro Mage side for 300 pages now has been trying to constrain the discussion to a vary narrow scope to paint Mages in the best light possible:

A group of four level 60's is chain pulling trash mobs one at a time (in this case high 40's Sebilis mobs with around 8000 HP). Additionally, they are saying the Shaman cannot root/rot trash mobs that Shamans could normally solo and root rot. I have no idea why, since this would increase DPS with no additional risk.

I have been humoring them by providing data and maths for this specific scenario to strong man their arguments.

I personally think this is strange, because a group of four level 60's it typically not going to just be chain pulling trash mobs. They will be doing money camps like Fungi King, Ixiblat Fer, Chardok, etc. In those situations You are 100% correct a Shaman's DPS will be better due to them being able to use DoTs fully.

DoT DPS is still not as good as a Mage when talking about single targets, but the math shows the difference in DPS isn't really giving you anything even when looking at a Shaman's worst possible DPS. You have already reached the proper DPS breakpoints with an Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric/Shaman group. That is the group composition most commonly being discussed, which is being compared to Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric/Mage.

[cyxthryth]

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

The pro Mage side for 300 pages now has been trying to constrain the discussion to a vary narrow scope to paint Mages in the best light possible:

The above Quote is simply an example of you sharing that it is your opinion that "The pro Mage side for 300 pages now has been trying to constrain the discussion to a vary narrow scope to paint Mages in the best light possible"; which is simply your opinion.

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

A group of four level 60's is chain pulling trash mobs (in this case high 40's Sebilis mobs with around 8000 HP). Additionally, they are saying the Shaman cannot root/rot trash mobs that Shamans could normally solo and root rot. I have no idea why, since this would increase DPS with no additional risk.

I am not sure why you are - seemingly - unable or unwilling to provide evidence of your Shaman root/rotting such trash mobs in the specifically/particularly relevant (to this discussion) environment/context/scenario, despite having been requested to multiple times by multiple posters, as that particular data would be relevant to the discussion (as has been explained to you multiple times, by multiple posters) - unlike the data/evidence you continue to copy/paste, and/or the various opinions you seemingly hold which you have - seemingly - attempted to - laughably - claim/state as objective fact.

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

I personally think this is strange, because a group of four level 60's it typically not going to just be chain pulling trash mobs. They will be doing money camps like Fungi King, Ixiblat Fer, Chardok, etc. In those situations You are 100% correct a Shaman's DPS will be better due to them being able to use DoTs fully.

The above Quote is simply an example of you sharing what you would - presumably, seemingly - like to convey to other posters (or a particular/specific other poster) that you - personally - think, and what you - personally - think "will be better", and what you would - presumably, seemingly - like to convey you believe a group of four level 60's "will be doing".

If you were to attempt to utilize the fact that another particular/specific poster seemed to agree with you on one or more particular points to attempt to claim, state, or otherwise imply/reveal/betray/expose (intentionally or otherwise) that you believe that could, would, or did somehow strengthen your argument, that would simply be an example of you claiming your argument is strengthened due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum - like you previously (intentionally or otherwise) attempted to claim by attempting to claim/imply that it was relevant that you and OP both (apparently) believe that "OP's post was/is general", and that that somehow meant there are no goalposts and/or that you have not moved the goalposts, simply due to you (and OP) making and agreeing with that claim. You have - laughably - still not provided the meaning that you were attempting to convey by "general" (or what meaning you believed the OP was attempting to convey causing you to - seemingly - agree with them).

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

DoT DPS is still not as good as a Mage when talking about single targets, but the math shows the difference in DPS isn't really giving you anything even when looking at a Shaman's worst possible DPS. You have already reached the proper DPS breakpoints.

For the sake of civil discussion, can you please go into a bit more detail about what meaning you are attempting to convey via the use of "isn't really giving you anything"?

[PlsNoBan]

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

this would increase DPS with no additional risk.

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

Someone fix this buggy ass chat bot please. It's saying infuriatingly stupid things.

[PlsNoBan]

Fucking ROFL at the guy answering the "best 4 man caster/priest group" question with "Just level a 5th pocket cleric" and repeatedly bringing up Ixiblat and WW dragons (the only things that MIGHT make sense to bring a shaman in this group for) so he can shoehorn his beloved shaman into the group instead. THEN accusing the OTHER people of "trying to constrain the discussion to a vary narrow scope" to paint their side in the best light possible.

You can't make this shit up

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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

Someone fix this buggy ass chat bot please. It's saying infuriatingly stupid things.

You are the one who keeps claiming the group is good and doesn't wipe. Now you are arguing for safety? Which is it?

[cyxthryth]

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

You are the one who keeps claiming the group is good and doesn't wipe. Now you are arguing for safety? Which is it?

In the above Quote, you have simply not addressed the irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - that you indicated/revealed/exposed/betrayed/confirmed your seemingly apparent - objectively false - belief that introducing additional mobs to a group introduces no additional risk, which is simply - again - objectively false, even if the mobs will be root/rotted:

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

they are saying the Shaman cannot root/rot trash mobs that Shamans could normally solo and root rot. I have no idea why, since this would increase DPS with no additional risk.

The above Quote would appear to include what appears to be you attempting to deflect by asking an - irrelevant - question in order to avoid addressing the above-mentioned unaddressed irrefutable fact (which you have not acknowledged/addressed/attempted to refute); which would simply be an example of deflection.

[PlsNoBan]

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

You are the one who keeps claiming the group is good and doesn't wipe. Now you are arguing for safety? Which is it?

A group with 2 (or more) enchanters in it is relying heavily on mez for CC in the event that CC is needed. It's objectively a better form of CC than root and just automatically safer and more reliable. A moron shaman root rotting a bunch of adds all over camp with a random chance to break root and be unmezzable cause they're dotted 100% adds risk. To claim it adds 0 risk is absolutely retarded. There's no other word for it. Mez is a huge part of the reason this group is so safe and unlikely to wipe. A single enchanter can keep tons of adds mezzed for quite a long time if shit hits the fan and there's no random chance to break and be beating on people.

The fact that I have to explain this to you is concerning. Have you even played this game before? Do you do anything but solo? I'm guessing probably not. Who the fuck would want to group with you.