Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[plzrelax]

4 wizards in an outdoor zone for leveling

[Duik]

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

4 wizards in an outdoor zone for leveling

Only if virtually limitless mobs and great mana regen.
Still is just 4 soloing chars chatting /g.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Otherwise there are no limitations, and we should then assume that all four players in the theoretical group have access to full accounts of alts and guildmates to help them in whatever situation they face. In that case, there is nothing to even talk about, because it doesn't matter what they play.

I am going to dismantle this argument more directly. It is easy to disprove, and I am not sure why people keep trying to make it.

There are four different character types the community generally agrees upon. They are categorized differently because they operate differently:

1. Main Characters - These are the characters you play the most, and invest the most resources into. You don't normally share your account information for Main Characters.

2. Alternate Characters - These are the characters you play less often, but still pour resources into. These can become Main Characters one day if you like them enough. You don't normally share your account information for Alternate Characters.

3. Mules - These are low level characters which store items that your Main and Alternate Characters cannot hold. You don't normally share your account information for Mules.

4. Pocket Characters - These characters are specifically designed to be geared and leveled as minimally as possible, so they can provide utility when needed. You DO share the account information for Pocket Characters, so they can res your character for example. This is due to the restriction of being unable to res yourself without another player's help for most classes. Because you share your Pocket Character's account information, you don't want to have a bunch of expensive items on a Pocket Character. You never know when people who have access to your account will steal or destroy stuff.

It's not accurate to try and claim Pocket Characters are somehow equivalent to Main/Alternate Characters, and thus the discussion becomes moot when you include them. They are not the same. The spirit of the discussion involves four individual players and four Main/Alt Characters that are casters/priests. If these four individual players have Mules and/or Pocket Characters, this does not invalidate the four Main/Alt Characters they are playing most of the time. People do have a Main Character Cleric and a Pocket Cleric if they want to keep their Main Character Cleric's account information private, but still want a Pocket Cleric around to res their other characters.

[Vexenu]

Everyone: Four characters

DSM: Let me tell you why four characters does not actually mean "four characters"

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Everyone: Four characters

DSM: Let me tell you why four characters does not actually mean "four characters"

You just need to read this post:

https://project1999.com/forums/showp...postcount=4706

It rebuts your argument completely. We do no say this group isn't allowed mules to store their items lol. The same thing applies to pocket characters, which are different from main/alternate characters.

[Vexenu]

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

You just need to read this post:

https://project1999.com/forums/showp...postcount=4706

It rebuts your argument completely. We do no say this group isn't allowed mules to store their items lol. The same thing applies to pocket characters, which are different from main/alternate characters.

A mule is fundamentally different than an alt or pocket, as the mule essentially functions only an extension of the player's bank, and not as a playable character. Indeed, this is so much the case that the race and class of a mule is almost completely irrelevant (excepting those who specifically roll level 5 Bard mules to be able to Selos and move while encumbered).

If I asked you, "DSM, if you could only pack four things in your suitcase, what would they be?" I would not expect you to reply with, "I would pack A, B, C and D in my suitcase, but then I would also carry X, Y and Z in my pockets," as doing so completely evades the purpose of the question, which is to spur debate over the value of various options given the artificially imposed restraints. Similarly, when we have a thread about the best four person group, it is implied within the framework of the question itself that we limit our replies to four classes.

By insisting that your response be allowed to include pocket characters and alts, you are flatly disregarding the spirit of the question at hand, are disrespecting the OP and all the other posters in the thread, as well as the forum itself. It is the equivalent of attending an art exhibition, projectile vomiting all over a blank canvas and proudly declaring to the stunned and disgusted crowd that, "Look everyone, I can make art too!"

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

A mule is fundamentally different than an alt or pocket, as the mule essentially functions only an extension of the player's bank, and not as a playable character. Indeed, this is so much the case that the race and class of a mule is almost completely irrelevant (excepting those who specifically roll level 5 Bard mules to be able to Selos and move while encumbered).

If I asked you, "DSM, if you could only pack four things in your suitcase, what would they be?" I would not expect you to reply with, "I would pack A, B, C and D in my suitcase, but then I would also carry X, Y and Z in my pockets," as doing so completely evades the purpose of the question, which is to spur debate over the value of various options given the artificially imposed restraints. Similarly, when we have a thread about the best four person group, it is implied within the framework of the question itself that we limit our replies to four classes.

By insisting that your response be allowed to include pocket characters and alts, you are flatly disregarding the spirit of the question at hand, are disrespecting the OP and all the other posters in the thread, as well as the forum itself. It is the equivalent of attending an art exhibition, projectile vomiting all over a blank canvas and proudly declaring to the stunned and disgusted crowd that, "Look everyone, I can make art too!"

I am glad to see you agree that different character types exist, as you agree Mules are different from Main/Alt Characters.

I haven't said "You can bring your level 60 raid geared Warrior to help this group" anywhere in this thread, so I am not sure why you keep assuming that. It sounds like you don't understand the difference between a pocket character and an alt/main character. You need to read my post more carefully, so you can understand what a pocket character is:

https://project1999.com/forums/showp...postcount=4706

No, I am not disrespecting this thread/forum by talking about pocket characters, which are a common strategy in P99. OP did not exclude them, and you cannot make this exclusion for OP.

Finally, I am not sure how I can evade the question of "what are you going to pack in your suitcase?" by telling you exactly what I am packing lol. Telling someone "This is what's in my suitcase, and I also put my Wallet in my pockets for easy access", is not an evasion. You are answering the question and providing additonal information.

[bcbrown]

This entire discussion is nothing but opinion, and Vexenu's opinion is as valid as anyone else's. You of course are free to go on advocating including pocket characters in your analysis, but it seems most people who have expressed an opinion on the matter are in favor of disregarding pocket characters.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

This entire discussion is nothing but opinion, and Vexenu's opinion is as valid as anyone else's. You of course are free to go on advocating including pocket characters in your analysis, but it seems most people who have expressed an opinion on the matter are in favor of disregarding pocket characters.

People are free to express their opinions. But they cannot claim "no pocket characters" is a hard requirement of the thread. This has been done in the thread to dismiss what I am saying.

Unlike them, I am not restricting their opinions. I am simply pointing out they are wrong when they say pocket characters are prohibited in this thread.

They are also wrong to equivocate Main/Alt Characters to Pocket Characters, as explained here https://project1999.com/forums/showp...postcount=4706

I also disagree with your premise that everything is opinion. We are dealing in facts too, and we cannot say facts of the game are opinions.

Someone can say a group of four clerics using rusty weapons to melee is the best group, because they like the playstyle. If they simply say it is their opinion, that is fine. If they make a factual claim that this group composition and rusty weapon strategy is factually the fastest leveling group possible, they have crossed from opinion into a factual claim. People can measure which groups compositions and strategies work the best to disprove this factual claim.

[bcbrown]

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

They are also wrong to equivocate Main/Alt Characters to Pocket Characters, as explained here https://project1999.com/forums/showp...postcount=4706

Equivocate isn't the word you're looking for here: "To express one's self in terms which admit of different interpretations." You might be looking for "equivalent": "alike in significance and value; of the same import and meaning", although that's an adjective, and not a verb. If you need a verb, I would suggest "equate": "to represent as equal or equivalent".