Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[PlsNoBan]

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

Hows the thread gone since Ally posted mage logs? I wish I had been there to cotp/son the pet [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It forced DSM to (once again) shift goalposts and arguments. He went from "Shamans do almost the same damage as mages" then realizing mages do way more cause of those logs and decided "More DPS is completely irrelevant unless you get an extra named/PH cycle from the DPS gain in a session of like 2 hours" which is obviously absurd and no realistic amount of DPS would achieve that. Takes like 20+ minutes for shit to respawn in this game and even with mediocre DPS you're killing it in like a minute. You could literally use his "DPS breakpoint" logic to justify a paladin being just as good as a rogue for a DPS slot in a group. It's insanely stupid. The things he comes up with are mind boggling.

[Kich867]

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

He specifically said no fungi/regen items. He had like 2 mediocre weapons and a SCHW and claimed to out solo an enchanter cause his DPS was higher than a charm pet in his mid 20s. First of all: debatable and depends on the charm pet and what weapons. You also have to consider damage caps for melee at low lvl limiting the effectiveness of twink weapons. He also openly admitted to not hasting his charm pets in this comparison. He also acted like it was an absurd idea that you could get free mage pet toys in EC for your charms. Something I did frequently when leveling my enc. None of that matters though cause fact of the matter is that without a fungi and the only twinking being weapons and a SCHW a warrior is going to have fairly large periods of downtime. The DPS could be 3x higher than a charm pet (it's not) and warrior would still lose due to downtime. There's no fucking chance a warrior solos with less downtime than an enc with no regen item or buffs. DSM in typical DSM fashion completely disregarded this and just kept talking about his questionable DPS data cause that's what suited his agenda at that particular moment. It changes frequently around here.

Sure, no regen items, but if you had pretty ballin weapons and a huge AC/HP pool, you really do not take that much damage at those levels as a warrior. You spend less time in combat because you're murdering the thing and your AC is so high they aren't often hitting you for max damage. It's not like you're waiting for full hp, you're just bandaging to 50% for each mob, it doesn't really take that long, it's not like cripplingly slow downtime. Even on my entirely untwinked warrior my downtime between mobs was like a minute tops and he had probably 1/10th the damage output so he had to eat way more hits during combat than a twink would.

Damage cap--totally, but you can have pre-level 10 or 20 weapons that are good for those levels, there's pretty nasty weapons that proc at level 1, Venomous Axe nukes for 85 and costs like 1.7-2k on green and it hovers just around the damage cap early on.

And while I'm sure I'm just ignorant about something here--I'm suspicious about the implication(?) that enchanters have basically no downtime. Everything in that process costs mana, you do end up having to nuke the mobs at some point, and anything that goes wrong costs more mana, even if you get to med most of the time your mana regen isn't that great at low levels, no?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

It forced DSM to (once again) shift goalposts and arguments. He went from "Shamans do almost the same damage as mages" then realizing mages do way more cause of those logs and decided "More DPS is completely irrelevant unless you get an extra named/PH cycle from the DPS gain in a session of like 2 hours" which is obviously absurd and no realistic amount of DPS would achieve that. Takes like 20+ minutes for shit to respawn in this game and even with mediocre DPS you're killing it in like a minute. You could literally use his "DPS breakpoint" logic to justify a paladin being just as good as a rogue for a DPS slot in a group. It's insanely stupid. The things he comes up with are mind boggling.

I didn't shift goalposts at all lol. You don't even know what this means. Earlier in thread, the data from Troxx showed Mage Pets do less DPS. His Pet data may still be true for non-Epic Mages, which is the vast majority of Mages. I am just strong manning the argument by using an Epic Pet because it is the highest DPS possible. Updating an argument due to getting new data isn't changing the goalposts, it's just normal procedure lol. And the Epic Mage still doesn't make a significant difference with the DPS breakpoints. It's 4.3 seconds per kill in the case of Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric/Mage.

DPS does increase kills per hour silly lol. It just stops doing so after you hit the optimal breakpoint. Going from 100 DPS to 200 DPS saves 40 seconds per kill on a mob with 8000 HP. If you are killing 20 mobs, that is saving 1600 seconds per hour. You are getting more spawn cycles with that much time saved.

Originally Posted by Kich867 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've never heard the take that low level melee twinks are bad at leveling, ever. Am I crazy? Like I honestly can't tell if this is just some stupid contrarian take because you don't like DSM or you've just never given a melee character dope gear and plowed through the beginning of the game before.

No, you are not crazy Kitch867 about Warriors and Enchanters. PlsNoBan is just being a contrarian to try and prove me wrong. He has admitted to being a troll multiple times.

I did talk about downtime, he just doesn't understand that Enchanters from 12-30 have a good chunk of downtime too. For some reason his argument is Enchanter's don't have downtime from 12-30, which is just nonsense. My Enchanter had plenty of downtime from 12-30. But of course, he will probably just say I am a bad player or something, because he has no evidence of downtime comparisons. He also forgot we are talking about grouping, not soloing, so the downtime would be different. He also just discards all data that disagrees with him lol.

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

I went to velks spiders the other day. I pulled the usual way for current meta (up to 5 mobs a time) and shaman was root rotting adds with epic. So it does happen in a ‘real’ context.

Exactly!

[PlsNoBan]

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

I didn't shift goalposts at all lol. You don't even know what this means. Earlier in thread, the data from Troxx showed Mage Pets do less DPS. His Pet data may still be true for non-Epic Mages, which is the vast majority of Mages. I am just strong manning the argument by using an Epic Pet because it is the highest DPS possible. Updating an argument due to getting new data isn't changing the goalposts, it's just normal procedure lol. And the Epic Mage still doesn't make a significant difference with the DPS breakpoints. It's 4.3 seconds per kill in the case of Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric/Mage.

DPS does increase kills per hour silly lol. It just stops doing so after you hit the optimal breakpoint. Going from 100 DPS to 200 DPS saves 40 seconds per kill on a mob with 8000 HP. If you are killing 20 mobs, that is saving 1600 seconds per hour. You are getting more spawn cycles with that much time saved.




No, you are not crazy Kitch867 about Warriors and Enchanters. PlsNoBan is just being a contrarian to try and prove me wrong. He has admitted to being a troll multiple times.

I did talk about downtime, he just doesn't understand that Enchanters from 12-30 have a good chunk of downtime too. For some reason his argument is Enchanter's don't have downtime from 12-30, which is just nonsense. My Enchanter had plenty of downtime from 12-30. But of course, he will probably just say I am a bad player or something, because he has no evidence of downtime comparisons. He also forgot we are talking about grouping, not soloing, so the downtime would be different. He also just discards all data that disagrees with him lol.



Exactly!

Ah shit. I thought your mom pulled your internet access or something cause you didn't post for like half a day. Was kinda nice not having a post full of complete nonsense every 5 minutes.

You absolutely did and continue to shift goalposts and change your arguments when you're proven wrong. Enchanter downtime is MUCH less than warrior without regen item/buff. The warrior is also most likely fighting mobs much lower level than them to take as little damage as possible cause they aren't regenning for shit. Enchanters typically fight higher level mobs by comparison. The XP difference is fairly noticeable and should be taken into account. But this is probably the dumbest argument you've made. I'd personally steer clear of this one.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Ah shit. I thought your mom pulled your internet access or something cause you didn't post for like half a day. Was kinda nice not having a post full of complete nonsense every 5 minutes.

You absolutely did and continue to shift goalposts and change your arguments when you're proven wrong. Enchanter downtime is MUCH less than warrior without regen item/buff. The warrior is also most likely fighting mobs much lower level than them to take as little damage as possible cause they aren't regenning for shit. Enchanters typically fight higher level mobs by comparison. The XP difference is fairly noticeable and should be taken into account. But this is probably the dumbest argument you've made. I'd personally steer clear of this one.

Nah. You need to prove your points with evidence. So far you have provided zero evidence for every argument made in this thread lol.

Enchanters 12-30 have plenty of downtime too due to lower meditation and mana regen buffs (less mana per tick), more fizzling (lower skills), more interrupts (lower channeling), more resists (lower level tash). I leveled an Enchanter from 12-30 recently, I know this very well. I was also leveling my Warrior.

The only proof so far is that you have admitted to being a troll:

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

Everyone (including you) has trolled at various points in this thread. Troll posts are not the majority of my posts. I have zero issue admitting when I'm doing so. Unlike some of us [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is one of multiple quotes of you admitting you are trolling. You are incorrect that I am trolling, and are also vastly underestimating the number of troll posts you have made. It is well over 300, and you have around 470 posts in this thread.

[Tewaz]

Guys, please log off and quit fighting over 23 year old elf quest.

[cyxthryth]

Oops! Double-post hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[cyxthryth]

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

shaman was root rotting adds with epic. So it does happen in a ‘real’ context. :

"Adds?" Please clarify... are you intending to convey that you were pulling 5 mobs at a time and the Shaman was rooting yet-additional (6th+) mobs? Or were the "adds" that were being root/rotted just part of what you have implied is the "current meta ([your pulls of] up to 5 mobs at a time)" standard/normal pull and you are simply calling them "adds" for an unknown/undefined reason?

What other classes were in this group, did it happen to have an Enchanter, and how long did it utilize this method/strategy of Shaman root rotting "adds"? For the sake of the - civil - discussion, it would be best to make these relevant factors clear. It's common for a Shaman and/or other classes to be rooting mobs as the groups primary CC if, for example, Root is the most dependable or only available form of CC the group has. At which point if heals are not needed, there isn't really much else for a Shaman to do against the primary DPS target - remember a Shaman won't be bothering to Malo or Slow mobs that die within 30s per DSM's posts in this thread, and Shaman will not get full value from their DoTs on targets that die too quickly - which will die in 30s anyway, so this hypothetical Shaman may as well DoT the "adds" because there is not much else it can (meaningfully) contribute. Let's be perfectly clear that in this specific scenario, you are pulling these mobs to the group and the Shaman is staying with the group, the Shaman has not ran off to fight "additional" mobs (over the 5 that you/the group have [intentionally] pulled) outside of the group (even though you are calling these mobs "adds" despite the fact that they were in your initial [presumably intentional] pull of 5 mobs at a time, which you have suggested is the meta, and not "additional mobs" to those 5). What DSM had earlier been claiming is that his Shaman could go fight / root/rot mobs independently from the group "if the group cares about DPS" hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Very different scenarios, objectively.

Originally Posted by Kich867 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

if you had pretty ballin weapons and a huge AC/HP pool

Hypotheticals can be valuable to discussions, however, such loosely defined variables as "pretty ballin weapons and a huge AC/HP pool" cannot be quantified, and I am not sure what point your post would seem to imply you think proposing the hypothetical Warrior "has pretty ballin weapons and a huge AC/HP pool" is making or what fact you think it is refuting.

Originally Posted by Kich867 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And while I'm sure I'm just ignorant about something here--I'm suspicious about the implication(?) that enchanters have basically no downtime. Everything in that process costs mana, you do end up having to nuke the mobs at some point, and anything that goes wrong costs more mana, even if you get to med most of the time your mana regen isn't that great at low levels, no?

I am not sure what evidence there is in this thread - if any - of an implication that "chanters have basically no downtime" that has caused you to have such a suspicion?

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

I didn't shift goalposts at all lol. You don't even know what this means.

Both claims you have made in the above Quote are unsubstatiated and false. You have shifted/moved goalposts multiple times, and this irrefutable fact - which you cannot refute - has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people.

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

Updating an argument due to getting new data isn't changing the goalposts, it's just normal procedure lol.

Your post would seem to suggest that you have forgotten - or are intentionally attempting to ignore - the irrefutable fact - which you cannot refute - that you have moved goalposts by attempting to bring an irrelevant/outside-the-scope-of-the-discussion 5th "pocket" character into this thread's discussion about "Best 4 person all caster/priest group". You have additionally provided zero evidence of what (you believe that) "normal procedure" is, and why you (seemingly) believe that stating that you have not moved goalposts - when you indeed have - can somehow cause the fact that you have moved goalposts to be ignored or to somehow go away if you claim that "Updating an argument due to getting new data isn't changing the goalposts, it's just normal procedure" hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] The facts will not change, nor go away.

This also sounds familiar hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] I seem to recall you had made the - unsubstantiated, false & laughable - claim that you were not moving goalposts simply because you and the OP both agree that his post "was general" (whatever that means) - AKA argumentum ad populum hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

And the Epic Mage still doesn't make a significant difference with the DPS breakpoints. It's 4.3 seconds per kill in the case of Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric/Mage.

The problem is that your post would seem to indicate that you believe that your opinion of what is significant - such as a difference in kill time of 4.3 seconds per mob - is objective; it is not - it is simply your opinion hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] This really isn't hard.

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

The only proof so far is that you have admitted to being a troll

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

I have admitted to zero trolling. Quite the contrary! In irrefutable fact - which you cannot refute - I have challenged you calling me a troll and have asked you to provide proof/evidence of my "trolling". You have not provided - and seemingly cannot provide - any evidence that supports your claim, hence your claim is unsubstantiated - and false.

Your post would seem to indicate that you believe that others "want to shut you up"? Oh quite the contrary! I have been attempting to continue having a civil discussion with you, but you have repeatedly ignored my posts and dodged my questions hehe.

Reposting the current state of the 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.

DSM attempted 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.

Of course - speaking strictly mathematically - 4=/=5, so it is unclear why DSM has attempted to bring this 5th character into the equation or why his posts would seem to indicate that he believes doing so is not an example of him moving goalposts - when it objectively is - hehe.

[Crede]

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that DSM refuses to have a discussion with cyxthryth? He claims he's a troll, but honestly just think he's afraid to play his forum chess game with him because he doesn't know how to respond to his rebuttals.

The 2 goalpost shifts by DSM(5th pocket cleric & DPS breakpoint) pretty much confirms the fact that shamans are useless(they can't cheal/rez & you can hit the dps breakpoint without them. They really bring nothing to the table, this is why you don't really see enchanter/cleric/shaman trios, the enchanter/cleric knows they just don't need a shaman.

There's honestly no point in continuing to argue with him. You will not convince him otherwise, the majority of us know the truth.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that DSM refuses to have a discussion with cyxthryth? He claims he's a troll, but honestly just think he's afraid to play his forum chess game with him because he doesn't know how to respond to his rebuttals.

The 2 goalpost shifts by DSM(5th pocket cleric & DPS breakpoint) pretty much confirms the fact that shamans are useless(they can't cheal/rez & you can hit the dps breakpoint without them. They really bring nothing to the table, this is why you don't really see enchanter/cleric/shaman trios, the enchanter/cleric knows they just don't need a shaman.

There's honestly no point in continuing to argue with him. You will not convince him otherwise, the majority of us know the truth.

You can look at cyxthryth's post history. It is all just literal nonsense. It is not anywhere close to a normal discussion. His first post in this thread was him saying he was angry at me for my opinion in another thread. It is clear he isn't here to have a discussion. All of his posts on this forum are just copy/pasted nonsense that he thinks is a mimicry of me. There is a reason why literally nobody engages with him, even the other posters who are against me.

Pocket clerics are not moving the goal posts, since nobody said that was a limitation. I am sorry you think simply talking about facts in Everquest is moving goalposts. That simply isn't true.

DPS Breakpoints have been my argument since page 2:

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

The Enchanters are providing the vast majority of the DPS via charmed pets. The Mage pet isn't doing that much hehe. Shamans can do fine DPS-wise.

Shaman pet has 2400 HP with FoS, and you can Torpor it. That is decently tanky. A Water pet only has 2500 HP hehe. It is providing security just fine, plus all the Shaman healing/slows/buffs.

I am not considering Epic Pets, because that is just really rare hehe. There are a LOT more Torpor Shamans than Epic Mages.

I didn't think I would have to explain how DPS worked on page 2, so I thought this would be a simple enough explanation. Clearly I was wrong.

To your point about trios, you typically see something like Shaman/Enchanter/Monk, there is no cleric at all. Shamans are generally preferred in Duos and Trios because their extra utility is more useful, and CH isn't needed for most content.

Shaman doesn't magically become less useful when you go from a trio to four people. That is the thing I find the most amazing. People will agree Shamans are great in duos and trios, but suddenly they offer nothing in four man groups. It is some great mental gymnastics to watch.