Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[bcbrown]

Stun is clearly better than Malo when it comes to charm breaks, but if necessary a mage could also bring Malo. But the dissent is noted, and I'll move on.

Lulls and pulls: clerics have Pacify and Atone, and can play the role of puller sometimes. The two DAs combined with enchanter aoe mez is a handy tool to have for breaking tough rooms.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Stun is clearly better than Malo when it comes to charm breaks, but if necessary a mage could also bring Malo. But the dissent is noted, and I'll move on.

No, you need to explain this. I could say "Malo is clearly better", and we would be at an impasse. You do not get to claim you are correct without evidence and move on.

[bcbrown]

It is my opinion that stun is clearly better than malo at helping an enchanter with charm breaks. Charm will always break. If you disagree with me, that's fine.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

It is my opinion that stun is clearly better than malo at helping an enchanter with charm breaks. Charm will always break. If you disagree with me, that's fine.

Since you admit this is an opinion without basis, Cleric Stuns are no longer a consideration for this debate. You cannot explain or prove why Cleric Stun is better than Malo, so your opinion holds no weight.

[bcbrown]

I'm at a loss for words.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I'm at a loss for words.

I am not sure why. If person A says Vanilla is better, and person B says Chocolate is better, you are at an impasse until one person provides evidence supporting their claim that Vanilla or Chocolate is better. Person A does not simply get to declare victory by stating Vanilla is better.

Here is some made up math that shows how Malo can be better. Let's say you get 5 charm breaks per hour. Cleric Stun has a 20% chance to be helpful, based on things like spell resistance and how quick the Cleric reacts. Lets say Malo reduces charm breaks by 2. In the end, Malo prevents 2 charm break disasters, while Cleric Stun only prevents 1.

You need to explain why you think Cleric Stun helps more, ideally with some evidence. Otherwise you just have an unsupported opinion.

You are not going to get away with simply saying "Clerics are better, moving on", while providing nothing of substance to back up your claims. If that was your entire plan for this debate, you can just stop wasting everybody's time. You already lost.

[cyxthryth]

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

I am not sure why. If person A says Vanilla is better, and person B says Chocolate is better, you are at an impasse until one person provides evidence supporting their claim that Vanilla or Chocolate is better. Person A does not simply get to declare victory by stating Vanilla is better.

Here is some made up math that shows how Malo can be better. Let's say you get 5 charm breaks per hour. Cleric Stun has a 20% chance to be helpful, based on things like spell resistance and how quick the Cleric reacts. Lets say Malo reduces charm breaks by 2. In the end, Malo prevents 2 charm break disasters, while Cleric Stun only prevents 1.

You need to explain why you think Cleric Stun helps more, ideally with some evidence. Otherwise you just have an unsupported opinion.

Even with Malo, a charm will inevitably break. Period. They have maximum durations.

When the inevitable break happens, a stun from cleric can save the chanter. Malo can help the chanter's own stun not resist, but Malo can't stun the mob for the chanter, and cannot save the chanter from being pushed or stunned.

[cyxthryth]

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

Stun has a 20% chance to be helpful, based on things like spell resistance and how quick the Cleric reacts.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

I'm guessing you have as much evidence supporting this claim as you have supporting your Shaman in a 4 person high dps group, root-rotting mobs parallel to the group? So... zero evidence 🤣

[bcbrown]

Ok, so far we've covered stuns and lull-pulls. Moving on to pet healing:

Shaman greater healing: 270/150 is 1.8 HPM. Complete Heal costs 400 mana, so as long as it's healing more than 720 health, it's a better ratio than shaman healing. It needs to heal at least 932 health to be more efficient than cleric superior healing, so if CH is landing at 30%, as soon as the pet is above 1300-1400ish health it'll be the better choice from a hp/mana conversion point of view. A Spurbone Skeleton in City of Mist is at 1496, so by the low 40s you'll be using complete heal for pets from now on.

Before then, starting at 34 clerics will have superior healing at 583/250 or 2.33HPM, while shamans have greater healing at 1.8HPM. So from level 34 onwards, clerics will be more efficient at healing charm pets.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Ok, so far we've covered stuns and lull-pulls. Moving on to pet healing:

Shaman greater healing: 270/150 is 1.8 HPM. Complete Heal costs 400 mana, so as long as it's healing more than 720 health, it's a better ratio than shaman healing. It needs to heal at least 932 health to be more efficient than cleric superior healing, so if CH is landing at 30%, as soon as the pet is above 1300-1400ish health it'll be the better choice from a hp/mana conversion point of view. A Spurbone Skeleton in City of Mist is at 1496, so by the low 40s you'll be using complete heal for pets from now on.

Before then, starting at 34 clerics will have superior healing at 583/250 or 2.33HPM, while shamans have greater healing at 1.8HPM. So from level 34 onwards, clerics will be more efficient at healing charm pets.

We didn't get to lulls, as we were discussing stuns. You cannot back up your opinion on stuns, so this is no longer a point in the debate.

Yes, somewhere in the 40s or 50s you start using CH more often, as already stated. This depends on the area. Next piece of evidence you need to provide is camps that benefit from Cleric healing efficiency. You are simply assuming it is needed right now. If both Shamans and Clerics can keep a party healed, and they don't lose kills per hour, you don't really benefit using CH or other Cleric heals during the leveling process.