Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[PlsNoBan]

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

Its not confusing at all. Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter work really well together, we agree on that. In a four man group you could do Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter/X and do really well, which has been my point since page 1:



If you actually believed your ideas about DPS and redundant utility, your six man group would look more like Warrior/Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter/Monk/Rogue. You keep saying Shamans are redundant with Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter.

Honestly I am just glad you really agree with me. You just want to troll for whatever reason. Probably for fun. I think that is /thread.

This is the very root of the problem in this thread. You're completely unable or unwilling to understand the nuances and differences between these different scenarios. You think changing variables somehow produces the same results. You take it personally because you love your class so much (I get it. No shame in it) when people say a different class is better at x or y. Nobody and I mean NOBODY is denying that shamans are an extremely powerful class. Probably 2nd only to enchanter in overall power? All people are arguing is that in this VERY SPECIFIC niche scenario that isn't all that common in the "real world" that shaman isn't the ideal choice. This seems to offend you to your core. So much so that you were willing to post 1200+ times arguing over it against literally every other poster here that disagrees. AGAIN shaman is a VERY POWERFUL class. Nobody is dissing shamans. In this specific situation someone is asking what the BEST COMBINATION of 4 caster/priest classes is OVERALL. Not the best 4 person caster/priest group for ixiblat or root rotting adds all over. Shaman simply doesn't make the cut here for a variety of reasons already discussed ad nauseum.

Why is this so hard for you? Admitting this very obvious fact doesn't diminish your class in the least. I realize you've dug too deep at this point to ever admit defeat or say anything different. I suspect there's part of you that realizes there's merit to what everyone is saying though. I refuse to believe you're actually this dense.

[Troxx]

DSM,

I will not argue with you what my preferred 6, 4, 3 or even 2 man group looks like if you include hybrids and melees.

This is where you failed DSM. You assumed I hate shamans and therefore you. My dislike for YOU is entirely separate from my sentiments on the shaman class. Unlike you, I can engage in abstract thought and understand that just because a shaman is god solo or in the right group setup … that doesn’t mean it is always the ideal choice for everything.

I love shamans. It was my second class to 60 after bard. My main (warrior) came much later and far after torpor as did my necro, druid, mage, cleric, monk and paladin. I know how classes work. I know what works and what doesn’t and how some classes complement each other so well that other classes become irrelevant.

Shamans are a great class. They just DO NOT belong in this unrealistic group as much as other classes might.

Am I a bit of a mage fan-boy? Yes. I will admit that. Mages are seriously underrated given they are tippy top best group dps and fill CRUCIAL raid roles no other class can fill. Outside of raids they are stellar dps and outperform any other class I have played within the confines of damage dealt and mobs being made dead. Important caveat is that I have NOT leveled an enchanter. This has been consistent to include necromancer. Necro can only charm undead. When they do it is really good dps but also risky … and for what? Maybe a pinch more dps than my mage could do? Without outside help it does add risk and time spent recharming that 100-120dps pet is time not spent doing dps. If external help is needed to cc, tash/malo my pet … is mana not spent on target. Anywhere without undead to charm the ONLY class that can challenge/beat my mage is a charming chanter.

Don’t misinterpret the above. Necros are stronger than mages. Zero question about it. But if the group just wants dps from a member, few if any do it better than a mage.

A fully velious geared rog? Sure. But when do you find them in xp groups. My warrior who is max xp and hovers just a few dps less fully buffed? Sure but how often do you find them in groups. Even then my mage has room to grow (epic, phinny staff, velks boots). My warrior already has THE BEST weapon for combined threat, dps and ripostes avoided. Are there better dps weapons? Yes. Better threat setups? Yes. But Frostreaver puts it all in one convenient package. My paladin likewise has THE BEST weapon for dps and tanking. My monk with TStaff wouldn’t see an actual bump without velious raid gear.

[Jibartik]

Jib … it was kind of the point of the thread. An exercise in what can be done without melee.

O yea look at that title [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Troxx]

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

O yea look at that title [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

Excellent. Now you understand the “why”. What none of us can understand is why it has taken over 350 pages for DSM to open his mind.

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

Without autism this thread would have been done and buried 300 pages ago.

[cyxthryth]

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

What none of us can understand is why it has taken over 350 pages for DSM to open his mind.

With all due respect Troxx, I do not personally hold the opinion (which is simply my opinion) that DSM has particularly shown evidence that he has opened his mind.

For the sake of civil discussion, I will provide the following as the definition/meaning I am intending to convey by "open his mind" in this specific post/context (in case it differs from the meaning you were attempting to convey, and in order to prevent my use of "open his mind" from being misunderstood): to demonstrate capability/capacity and interest in expanding both one's own and another or multiple other posters' understanding of each other's perspectives, to the mutual benefit of all participants who are presumed to be truthful and participating/discussing or "arguing" in good faith, to defend their positions/stances/perspectives/beliefs with relevant, factual data/evidence/logic/math.

As far as I am aware, DSM has - yet again - copy/pasted that same old "Thanks Allishia!" copy/paste post (which he has continued to copy/paste) - which simply includes simply irrelevant solo Shaman data - as recently as a few hours ago, and he has multiple times now shared that it is his opinion/belief (which he has - laughably -attempted to state/claim objectively in his posts, as if he for some reason believes that his opinions/beliefs are objective facts) that the reason the data he keeps copy/pasting is irrelevant to this discussion has not been proven/explained/shown to him (which would of course be - objectively - false), & has repeatedly demanded/claimed/stated/posted that other posters or specific/particular other posters (such as Gloomlord, for example) still need to prove/explain why/show that it is irrelevant... as if it has not already been proven/explained/shown multiple times by multiple posters.

DSM has also simply not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute the following:

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) that DSM is currently holding/defending/"arguing"; it would be helpful if he could elaborate/clarify/specify 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.]

[Troxx]

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

… stuff …

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

I still find it hilarious he absolutely will not respond or talk to you directly.

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

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

This is where you failed DSM. You assumed I hate shamans and therefore you.

I never assumed this at all, nor did I say it anywhere. This is one of many strawmen you have created in your head. I still find it amazing at how many fictions have been created in this thread that people assume are facts. You are projecting the fact that you keep saying I hate mages, which I don't. I have said many times I like Mages.

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

My dislike for YOU is entirely separate from my sentiments on the shaman class. Unlike you, I can engage in abstract thought and understand that just because a shaman is god solo or in the right group setup … that doesn’t mean it is always the ideal choice for everything.

More projecting. I am the one engaging in abstract thought by extrapolating simple solo DPS data to a group. You are the concrete thinker who cannot think about DPS outside of group data. You cannot fathom the concept that you can output the same DPS in a group and solo. Your concrete thinking is precisely why you keep thinking my data is invalid, when it isn't.

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

Am I a bit of a mage fan-boy? Yes. I will admit that.

This is the real reason you don't like me. You don't like that I pointed out Mages don't really fit to well here due to their limitations. You should be happy with my Enchanter/Shaman/Necro/Mage concept, since it does include them for CoTH.

Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter work really well together, we agree on that. In a four man group you could do Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter/X and do really well, which has been my point since page 1:

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

Shaman Enchanter Enchanter Cleric. If you are planning on doing Fungi Tunic camp then probably swap 1 Enchanter for a Necro, so they can pull.

If you actually believed your ideas about DPS and redundant utility, your six man group would look more like Warrior/Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter/Monk/Rogue. You keep saying Shamans are redundant with Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter.

Honestly I am just glad you really agree with me. You just want to troll for whatever reason. Probably for fun. I think that is /thread.

[Ripqozko]

Mega Yikes

[Troxx]

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

Mega Yikes

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

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

This is where you failed DSM. You assumed I hate shamans and therefore you.

I never assumed this at all, nor did I say it anywhere. This is one of many strawmen you have created in your head. I still find it amazing at how many fictions have been created in this thread that people assume are facts. You are projecting the fact that you keep saying I hate mages, which I don't. I have said many times I like Mages.

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

My dislike for YOU is entirely separate from my sentiments on the shaman class. Unlike you, I can engage in abstract thought and understand that just because a shaman is god solo or in the right group setup … that doesn’t mean it is always the ideal choice for everything.

More projecting. I am the one engaging in abstract thought by extrapolating simple solo DPS data to a group. You are the concrete thinker who cannot think about DPS outside of group data. You cannot fathom the concept that you can output the same DPS in a group and solo. Your concrete thinking is precisely why you keep thinking my data is invalid, when it isn't.

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

Am I a bit of a mage fan-boy? Yes. I will admit that.

This is the real reason you don't like me. You don't like that I pointed out Mages don't really fit to well here due to their limitations. You should be happy with my Enchanter/Shaman/Necro/Mage concept, since it does include them for CoTH.

Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter work really well together, we agree on that. In a four man group you could do Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter/X and do really well, which has been my point since page 1:

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

Shaman Enchanter Enchanter Cleric. If you are planning on doing Fungi Tunic camp then probably swap 1 Enchanter for a Necro, so they can pull.

If you actually believed your ideas about DPS and redundant utility, your six man group would look more like Warrior/Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter/Monk/Rogue. You keep saying Shamans are redundant with Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter.

Honestly I am just glad you really agree with me. You just want to troll for whatever reason. Probably for fun. I think that is /thread.