Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Gloomlord]

"Shamans are the second best solo class in the game, even though we're talking about a 4 man group here where 2 classes render him obsolete".

Genius! Much like a "pocket cleric" not being a 5th member, right?

My suggestion isn't that it "cannot work" -- it's that it's "meaningless".

You've lost the argument, do you realise that?

[Ripqozko]

C u all at page 400, DSM is why VQ is dead

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

"Shamans are the second best solo class in the game, even though we're talking about a 4 man group here where 2 classes render him obsolete".

Genius! Much like a "pocket cleric" not being a 5th member, right?

My suggestion isn't that it "cannot work" -- it's that it's "meaningless".

You've lost the argument, do you realise that?

The reason why Enchanters are the best solo class is because they are the most powerful class overall. It's not a coincidence. Why do you think people want multiple Enchanters on the same team? The same logic follows with a Shaman and a Monk for their respective roles.

The argument that redundancy renders a class obsolete is extremely silly when you advocate for 2 Enchanters on the same team. That is the definition of redundancy, but it is still a great idea.

I think the issue here is you don't understand enough about the game to realize a 4 man group is not a very good number on P99. Most people prefer trios because you don't really expand the amount of content you can do with 4 people, and loot splits better 3 ways. You generally want 5-6 people for the harder single group content.

And yes, plenty of people have pocket clerics. Thinking otherwise is simply naïve. Guilds have cleric bots too, so you may not even need to level one up yourself.

Saying something is "meaningless" is meaningless by itself. Again, I am not sure why we have to trust you on this.

[Gloomlord]

See, the thing is: even if he's trolling, he's not anymore intelligent for doing so.

He goes around posting on other threads, thinking he possesses some sage wisdom. No trolling goes into that. He's just a very arrogant and self-righteous person who resorts to this behaviour when we inform him why his "wisdom" is not so sage.

We've all covered this before, DSM. You lost then, and you've lost now.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

See, the thing is: even if he's trolling, he's not anymore intelligent for doing so.

He goes around posting on other threads, thinking he possesses some sage wisdom. No trolling goes into that. He's just a very arrogant and self-righteous person who resorts to this behaviour when we inform him why his "wisdom" is not so sage.

We've all covered this before, DSM. You lost then, and you've lost now.

Do you read your own posts? I fail to see how you are providing anything meaningful with insults, trolling, and claiming that playing the game in ways you disagree with is "meaningless".

I don't mind if you disagree with me, but you really aren't doing anything to prove your own points. Why should people listen to you?

You are just discrediting yourself by acting this way. I am not sure why this topic upsets you so much.

[Gloomlord]

And you haven't discredited yourself with your pathological lies?

Keep telling yourself that.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

And you haven't discredited yourself with your pathological lies?

Keep telling yourself that.

Making things up is not an argument. What pathological lies?

[Gloomlord]

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

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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

Thank you for proving my point. You can't show one.

[Gloomlord]

Yeah, not falling for that, manchild.

No one else shall when they read this thread, either.