Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[bcbrown]

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

You may want to improve those critical reading skills.

You've already acknowledged those skills.

There's a huge number of trolls, shitposts, and copy-pasta in this thread, yes. There's also innumerable attempts, in vain, to reason with you. You declined my offer to discuss with you.

Have a good day!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You've already acknowledged those skills.

There's a huge number of trolls, shitposts, and copy-pasta in this thread, yes. There's also innumerable attempts, in vain, to reason with you. You declined my offer to discuss with you.

Have a good day!

Saying "I am right and you are wrong" is not an attempt at reasoning with someone.

If your entire premise is I can never make a mistake, that is a silly premise. Are you applying that to everybody else here equally? Are you going to discredit everybody else who made a mistake who disagrees with me?

I declined to have a discussion with you based on preconditions I don't agree with. I would be happy to have a discussion with you if you can remove the unnecessary preconditions.

OP did not specify any of the mentioned preconditions, so they are completely arbitrary to be honest.

[cyxthryth]

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

Saying "I am right and you are wrong" is not an attempt at reasoning with someone.

If your entire premise is I can never make a mistake, that is a silly premise. Are you applying that to everybody else here equally? Are you going to discredit everybody else who made a mistake who disagrees with me?

I declined to have a discussion with you based on preconditions I don't agree with. I would be happy to have a discussion with you if you can remove the unnecessary preconditions.

Yet you yourself continuously apply preconditions to the discussion (such as "You have to think about what a level 60 is doing") as my previous posts have already illustrated. You - still - seemingly cannot engage with my posts in this thread, presumably because your only option is direct, outright concession.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Yet you yourself continuously apply preconditions to the discussion (such as "You have to think about what a level 60 is doing") as my previous posts have already illustrated. You - still - seemingly cannot engage with my posts in this thread, presumably because your only option is concession.

The entire premise of leveling a character is to get to max level. That is not an arbitrary precondition. It is the goal of the leveling system, and why the game programmers put it in. Everquest was not designed around the concept that players will level to 30 and stop.

There is no purpose in efficiently leveling to 40 and then stopping. Trying to argue otherwise is nonsensical. If your group wants to do it for fun, great! It can be done with most 4 man groups without a problem.

[bcbrown]

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

If your entire premise is I can never make a mistake, that is a silly premise. Are you applying that to everybody else here equally? Are you going to discredit everybody else who made a mistake who disagrees with me?

Yes, in fact, anyone who uses incorrect factual information or poor reasoning will result in me viewing them as less credible. I've applied that to everyone else in this thread, as well, and I view some of them as more credible than others. Jimjam, for example, is among the most credible in my mind. Raj, too. In fact, perhaps a good proxy for credibility would be sorting by post count in ascending order, the least posts being the most credible. I view the factual information that you, DSM, provide as credible, but I find your reasoning less credible. Your arguments do not persuade me.

For an example of flawed reasoning, I'm not sure why you think my premise is that you can never make a mistake. One of the things I like about you is that you don't hesitate to acknowledge mistakes when you recognize them!

The incredibly frustrating flip side of that is that you seem unable to recognize any mistakes that may threaten your premise that a shaman belongs in "best 4 person all caster/priest group".

[cd288]

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

Shamans have the best slow in the game, so you are incorrect there. A group without a Warrior does not need CH, and Torpor/Slow is going to mitigate the damage this group is taking just fine.

3x Enchanters are going to die more due to multiple charm breaks, which nobody wants to take into account.

You are overestimating DPS and CH for this group, while saying Shamans are bad without merit. 300 DPS vs 200 DPS is only saving you a few seconds per kill.

If you have 3 Enchanters then the only way anyone should be dying to a charm break is if you're killing an unstunnable mob. And even then low level root has a very short cast. Your comment makes no sense lol.

I've done 3 Enchanter groups before multiple times and not a single death happened due to a Charm break. The only time I ever had a death in that group was due to whacky Velks pathing causing a massive train.

[cyxthryth]

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

The entire premise of leveling a character is to get to max level. That is not an arbitrary precondition. It is the goal of the leveling system, and why the game programmers put it in. Everquest was not designed around the concept that players will level to 30 and stop.

There is no purpose in efficiently leveling to 40 and then stopping. Trying to argue otherwise is nonsensical. If your group wants to do it for fun, great! It can be done with most 4 man groups without a problem.

How are your reading comprehension skills? Where has anybody indicated they are arguing that a group will get to a particular level and stop? I believe you may have constructed that man of straw yourself to argue against. If I am mistaken, please provide evidence to prove/justify your insinuation, otherwise it is unsubstantiated - and likely false as well as indeed a strawman.

Additionally, I provided the below direct responses already:

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

There are more reasons to play the game than "wanting to level to 60" even if eventually becoming level 60 is a product/result of playing the game. Regardless, even if "wanting to get to level 60" and "will eventually reach level 60" are accepted preconditions, the discussion is simply about the "best" 4 person all caster/priest group - and such a group will simply begin at level 1, without full spellbooks. Therefore:

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

it could be argued that by insisting the conversation be focused solely (or even mostly) around the capabilities of classes at level 60 with full spellbooks that you are simply specifying a precondition designed to restrict the conversation to try and make a certain class (Shaman) favorable for specific scenarios (which the OP did not specify any, remember?) and that you are simply fervently trying to win the argument by creating a scenario where your favorite class is the best, and then using that to claim other classes can never be superior.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Yes, in fact, anyone who uses incorrect factual information or poor reasoning will result in me viewing them as less credible. I've applied that to everyone else in this thread, as well, and I view some of them as more credible than others. Jimjam, for example, is among the most credible in my mind. I view the factual information that you, DSM, provide as credible, but I find your reasoning less credible. Your arguments do not persuade me.

For an example of flawed reasoning, I'm not sure why you think my premise is that you can never make a mistake. One of the things I like about you is that you don't hesitate to acknowledge mistakes when you recognize them!

The incredibly frustrating flip side of that is that you seem unable to recognize any mistakes that may threaten your premise that a shaman belongs in "best 4 person all caster/priest group".

I may have misunderstood what you meant by:

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

You've already acknowledged those skills.

To me, that sounds like you are saying "you read one post incorrectly, therefore you are probably reading many incorrectly, and thus are not understanding the other posters".

This is the problem with posting very short sentences, you are making an assumption that I understand the context you have in your mind when you are typing it out.

I agree JimJam is a sensible poster. Crede is a sensible poster too, but he is clearly getting frustrated for some reason.

I am perfectly happy to admit I am wrong if someone can provide evidence other than "Clerics are better, Shamans offer nothing", and having a bunch of people just agree with that argument.

But I am not going to let people simply trample the discussion because they think ad populum fallacies are logically sound.

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you have 3 Enchanters then the only way anyone should be dying to a charm break is if you're killing an unstunnable mob. And even then low level root has a very short cast. Your comment makes no sense lol.

I've done 3 Enchanter groups before multiple times and not a single death happened due to a Charm break. The only time I ever had a death in that group was due to whacky Velks pathing causing a massive train.

It makes sense if you understand 3x Enchanters aren't giving you much return. The DPS from 2x Enchanters is all you need. It's better to increase utility and safety to improve consistency, instead of adding more DPS to a group that doesn't need it.

[bcbrown]

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

How are your reading comprehension skills? Where has anybody indicated they are arguing that a group will get to a particular level and stop? I believe you may have constructed that man of straw yourself to argue against. If I am mistaken, please provide evidence to prove/justify your insinuation, otherwise it is unsubstantiated - and likely false as well as indeed a strawman.

Naw, that's actually fairly close to my position. I'm at 45 now, probably won't stop at 50, but I definitely don't expect to reach 60.

The original question includes no real context. Your perspective is colored by a focus on named camps where everyone is 60 with ~more or less~ epic and full gear. My perspective is colored by a focus on leveling 1-50 untwinked, especially random adventuring through an entire dungeon, instead of camping a single named mob. Both of these perspectives are subjective.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Naw, that's actually fairly close to my position. I'm at 45 now, probably won't stop at 50, but I definitely don't expect to reach 60.

If you don't plan on reaching 60, there is little reason to worry about efficiency. Just have fun and play until you get bored. That is my point. There is nothing wrong with this play style either.

You worry about efficiency if you plan on doing the harder content where it actually matters.