Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[7thGate]

The pets have good hp but slowing is unreliable with only tash so you're back to valueing the shaman in addition to the cleric imo, although maybe a mage could work. I doubt that the shaman could tank+heal even preslowing.

I think the clearest case for me is Chardok Overking. Duoable but rough for ench+cleric. I don't think it's slowable or shaman self heal tankable.

I did have a pretty good experience duoing a round of puppets ench/shaman with the shaman torp tanking, would do it again given we have a pocket cleric available.

Puppets is a great duo camp with Shaman, assuming you can get one that is decently geared and isn't scared to tank them. The max hit is scary looking but they have terrible attack so torp is enough as long as they're not trying to DoT or anything. Any strong melee or charmed pet class can hold that camp in a duo with a shaman, its great.

[fortior]

Cleric isn't just healing power, it's also rez. Not having rez in some of these zones is an unacceptable risk imo

[cyxthryth]

Nobody is giving up cleric for shaman in this setup. Complete heal for pets, multiple lines of stuns to include aoe stun, rez, DA, powerful emergency heals Â…

Tell us a specific camp that needs the Cleric CHing the character. Pocket Cleric is more than capable of handling the occasional res and pet CH.

As you can see, Troxx... cannot name even one camp that needs a Cleric CHing an Enchanter pet.


Hey DSM, just because you tell, demand, or ask another poster (such as Troxx) to do something (such as "Tell us a specific camp that needs the cleric CHing the character") does NOT mean they are under any sort of obligation to do so.

You should be well aware of this objective fact, as multiple previous posts in this very thread (from multiple different people) have repeatedly tried telling, demanding, or asking you to provide evidence of your Shaman root-rotting mobs separately from the group that your Shaman is actively playing/grouping with. You provided no evidence (despite your many hundreds/thousands of posts in this thread) that support your claims of such activities.

Therefore, I am not sure why your post seems to have an accusatory or "gotcha!" vibe, as if Troxx not doing what you told/demanded/asked him to do is somehow a bad thing or somehow proves that "Troxx is unable to explain his position, and cannot name even one camp that needs a Cleric CHing an Enchanter pet.", as it proves no such thing, and if it did, then by the same logic you would be simply inadvertently/unintentionally conceding that YOU YOURSLEF, by not providing evidence of your Shaman root-rotting mobs parallel to your group (that you are actively grouping with) would be sufficient cause for another poster (such as myself, Troxx, etc.) to objectively claim that you are incapable of providing evidence to support your claims of your Shaman root-rotting multiple mobs parallel to your group.

Additionally, your specific use of:
As you can see, Troxx... cannot name even one camp that needs a Cleric CHing an Enchanter pet.

was - objectively - a blatant straw man, because Troxx simply did not claim that any camps exist which "needs a Cleric CHing an Enchanter pet".
Cute straw man, was it fun to argue against?
Hehe. :)

[Vexenu]

Charming a big nasty with a Cleric partner is so much nicer knowing that if charm breaks at a bad time he'll be backing you up with Stun Command, Aego, CH and if all else fails, rez.

Meanwhile with some fat fuck Shaman he's just gonna buff you with Talisman of the Jagoff and impotently spam Chloro before you both take a dirt nap.

[fortior]

Claiming a pocket cleric for pet CH is such a bullshit stretch. Yeah let me just pocket a shaman to malo and slow on every single pull in ST. Good grief.

[Troxx]

My sentiments have not changed since page 76

https://c.tenor.com/eVAPFEU17_wAAAAd/yes-thirsty.gif


Ladies and gentlemen… we are witnessing an atomic meltdown!

Myself and others spent the first 50+ pages of this thread trying to have an honest discussion with actual data. Unfortunately we learned quickly that it was pointless. 420 pages later we have covered precisely 0 ground with captain oblivious.

If nothing else, it has been highly entertaining.

[Toxigen]

500 pages here we come.

Let's put a twist on this. These hypothetical group comps start at level 1. No "HURR POCKET CLERIC" bullshit.

By the time DSM's "shaman over cleric" variant hits 60 the cleric group has been farming for weeks or months because they were able to keep uber pets rolling constantly (CH) and rez when things go tits up to keep the XP bars chugging along.

Oh and then they need to pool all their resources to buy Torpor, a spell which also slows down pet dps.

lmao

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Claiming a pocket cleric for pet CH is such a bullshit stretch. Yeah let me just pocket a shaman to malo and slow on every single pull in ST. Good grief.

Comparing a level 49 pocket cleric to a 60 Torpor Shaman is silly.

Let me remind you what a pocket character is, as people seem to forget in this thread for some reason:

https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3688388&postcount=4706



Oh and then they need to pool all their resources to buy Torpor, a spell which also slows down pet dps.

lmao

If you have 2-3 Enchanters, you are spending a lot of money on Enchanter spells too. This is a silly argument. Torpor has also gone down a lot in price.

You don't Torpor the pets, the Shaman tanks the mob and Torpors themselves. Pets get more DPS because they are attacking from behind, and they don't take damage. Shaman can buff the pets too.

My sentiments have not changed since page 76


Troxx still cannot name a camp that needs a Cleric CHing the pet, and he is a proven troll https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3654337&postcount=114 .

He doesn't provide evidence for his claims, yet asserts he is correct. He can't even provide log data for DPS calculations. He believes a pixelated screenshot of an excel spreadsheet is good enough evidence, but log data and videos are not.

I have provided evidence for my claims in this thread, everybody can see it if they go back into the thread and check. Trolls simply claiming all of my evidence is invalid is nothing but a troll tactic. They can't provide counter-evidence, so they try to invalidate other people's evidence by trolling. It's the only strategy they have.

[Trexller]

someone was trying to sell torp for 35k on blue yesterday

[Troxx]

I lub me some shaman but DSM is smoking crack

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I lub me some shaman but DSM is smoking crack

As you can see, Troxx cannot rebut anything, or provide counter-evidence. Thank you for conceding via trolling.

[Duik]

Charming a big nasty with a Cleric partner is so much nicer knowing that if charm breaks at a bad time he'll be backing you up with Stun Command, Aego, CH and if all else fails, rez.

Meanwhile with some fat fuck Shaman he's just gonna buff you with Talisman of the Jagoff and impotently spam Chloro before you both take a dirt nap.

The final sentence here is perfection. Although im sure there is more the fat fuck can do.

I want, nay need the bots to treat us like this.

[fortior]

Comparing a level 49 pocket cleric to a 60 Torpor Shaman is silly.

Let me remind you what a pocket character is, as people seem to forget in this thread for some reason:

https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3688388&postcount=4706


This is just you making up a definition that suits your conclusions and playing it off as rigid truth. There’s no reason why a 55 mage with coth can be pocketed but a 60 shaman with malo can’t. Hell I could probably 60 a shaman before 55ing a mage.

[Pulgasari]

As you can see, Troxx cannot rebut anything, or provide counter-evidence. Thank you for conceding via trolling.

Why do you have so many conflicts with so many forum users?

[Trexller]

Why do you have so many conflicts with so many forum users?

if you never stir up controversy on the internet, are you even alive?

[Topgunben]

I think best would be 1 cleric 3 enchanters
or the next best would be;
cleric, 2x enc, necro

necro is nice to have for FD and after SHTF rez.

Isnt it funny how powerful enchanters are? this might be 14 years late, but I think it might be time to nerf enchanter charm.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This is just you making up a definition that suits your conclusions and playing it off as rigid truth. There’s no reason why a 55 mage with coth can be pocketed but a 60 shaman with malo can’t. Hell I could probably 60 a shaman before 55ing a mage.

I am not making up definitions. That is quite a bold statement you disagree with what a pocket character is.

There are plenty of reasons why a level 49 pocket cleric is different from a level 60 torpor Shaman:

1. Leveling from 50-60 takes as much time as leveling from 1-50. So you spent half the time leveling.

2. It costs a lot less money to level, gear, and buy spells for a pocket cleric.

3. You share the account information of a pocket character. You typically don't share your account information for a level 60 Torpor Shaman in good gear. People could cause a lot more damage to the 60 Shaman than a sparesly geared level 49 cleric if they want to steal or destroy stuff. Reimbursements take a while to get.

Pretending pocket characters are the same as main characters is silly. Anybody who has been in a guild during the past 7 years at least understands the difference. It's not a new concept, and there are a lot of pocket characters on both servers.

Why do you have so many conflicts with so many forum users?

It's quite simple. Posters like Troxx are confirmed trolls who attack other posters who disagree with them. They are the problem, and will continue to attack other posters when I am gone. That is how bullies work. They gang up on other people to give the illusion of agreement, because they cannot win a debate normally.

[Troxx]

If we allow pocket characters…

The best 4 man all caster group is 4 shamans playing their pocket cleric, enchanter, enchanter and any any 4th caster that isn’t a shaman?

:D

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If we allow pocket characters…

The best 4 man all caster group is 4 shamans playing their pocket cleric, enchanter, enchanter and any any 4th caster that isn’t a shaman?

:D

As you can see, Troxx still cannot provide a camp that needs a Cleric to CH an Enchanter pet, or any other evidence to support his claims. If he could prove his claims, he would have done so with evidence and logic. He also doesn't understand what pocket characters are apparently.

Thank you for continuing to concede via trolling.

[Troxx]

I do not recall ever citing “need” for cheal on a pet. That is just an idiotic straw man demand you made of me - one I’m still happy to ignore on the grounds of the absurdity of the ask and the argument that would follow.

And yeah … no. When considering big ass nasty high dps charm pets, the value of multiple quick cast stun, actually POTENT blast heals, super efficient complete heal on high hp pets, multiple DAs and … when all else fails … Rez …

It is literally a no-brainer. You are, I think, the only person on this server who isn’t capable of recognizing the perfect synergy between a charming enchanter (2 or 3 of them in this case) and the cleric class.


————————

So what are we left with in this thread?

-You have claimed that shamans can dps like mages in a fast paced group with multiple charm pets.

*they can’t, not even close

-you have advocated for bringing the shaman because the group will want you root rotting 4-5 mobs parallel to the group

*nobody wants that

-you have stated that this exercise in theorycrafting allows for pocketing whatever class you want on the side for what might need - notably cleric but heck let’s extend this to a pocket wiz to TL them? Pocket druid for potg?

*lol no that wasn’t the point of this thread. You’re just moving goalposts to try to rationalize why your chosen main should make the cut

-you are now trying to warp reality in asserting that an enchanter charming a high dps quadding hasted pet would rather have a shaman watching their back than a cleric

*lol no … just … no …

—————

Look man, shamans are a great/stellar class. Very powerful with a wide tool kit. Unfortunately, they just don’t really fit in here. Everything important that they CAN do is redundant to what the group already has. They don’t need you to slow. For content that needs slow, 2 other group members can do that. They don’t need you to heal. The cleric has that covered. They don’t need you to CC. At least 3 of the other 4 will have root. 2 of them have mez. Malo is nice and has value but there’s another that can do that.

A shaman in this group would basically be tossing unnecessary buffs, standing by for backup heals that won’t be needed, and maybe trying to contribute some dps - but as has already been proven - they will do that poorly when you’ve got 2 buzz-saw ench pets going to town. The best damage shamans put out are dots - and this group isn’t really going to have mobs living long enough for dots to do much of anything.

Great class … except in this weird theorycraft situation

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I do not recall ever citing “need” for cheal on a pet. That is just an idiotic straw man demand you made of me - one I’m still happy to ignore on the grounds of the absurdity of the ask and the argument that would follow.


Asking you to provide evidence for your claims is not a straw man lol. You need to show why a Cleric's kit is better for this group, beyond merely saying so. If you don't need CH for the pets, that weakens your argument for a Cleric. How desparate you are right now. You know you can't back up your claims.

The rest of your post is just a combination of lies about things I have said, or lies about what you claim I believe. I'd ask you to actually quote me on any of this, but you can't of course. You can't even provide logs for your clams about Mage DPS, which is the easiest thing in the world to do.

Just look at your claim that I said "you can pocket any class". Clearly nonsense. Please quote me saying this. Do you have reading comprehension issues, or are you delusional?


-you are now trying to warp reality in asserting that an enchanter charming a high dps quadding hasted pet would rather have a shaman watching their back than a cleric


Troxx has apparently never done Fungi King, as Enchanter/Shaman/Monk(or SK) is a very common setup. He doesn't understand how Shaman Torpor tanking works. Shamans can solo tank 6+ WW Dragons, but somehow Troxx doesn't understand how powerful of a tank Shamans are on anything that is slowable.


A shaman in this group would basically be tossing unnecessary buffs, standing by for backup heals that won’t be needed, and maybe trying to contribute some dps - but as has already been proven - they will do that poorly when you’ve got 2 buzz-saw ench pets going to town. The best damage shamans put out are dots - and this group isn’t really going to have mobs living long enough for dots to do much of anything


Here is Troxx proving he still doesn't understand how Shamans work. He also has this strange idea that a group of level 60s are mostly killing a lot of mobs for XP, and not camping items. He seems to think XPing with four casters before 60 is somehow difficult, and needs optimization, instead of optimizing for level 60.

You look really silly right now. Thank you for continuing to concede via trolling and meltdown.

[Troxx]

This this thread has within its scope the full game. Like also levels 1-59. Enchanters can flat out solo most content that a small squad can be expected to tackle.

What content/targets does a shaman make possible that otherwise couldn’t be done with 2 enchanters and a cleric (just 3) couldn’t handle?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This this thread has within its scope the full game. Like also levels 1-59. Enchanters can flat out solo most content that a small squad can be expected to tackle.

What content/targets does a shaman make possible that otherwise couldn’t be done with 2 enchanters and a cleric (just 3) couldn’t handle?

Precicely. As you said yourself, the Enchanters can solo the content already. A group of four casters with at least one Enchanter is stomping content so hard a Cleric isn't needed for the first 59 levels.

You bring the Shaman because they provide more use at level 60 with Torpor. West Waste Dragons and Fungi King are two level 60 camps where a Shaman is preferred over a Cleric. The truth is most camps that this group would be going after can use a Shaman instead of a Cleric, because Torpor Tanking with Slow is very effective. This thread doesn't allow Warriors in the group, so content that needs a Cleric to CH a Warrior is off the table. I liked some of 7ThGate's suggestions for possible Cleric camps, but those are pushing the limits of what this group could do, and also you'd run afoul of guild politics if any of your group members are in a guild.

If you are going the farm crew Wizard port route, Wizard/Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter can solo three separate camps while waiting for bigger targets. Cleric can't solo a lot of higher value camps unless the group is spending a lot of money on things like Puppet Strings, so they'd just be stuck with an Enchanter who could solo the camp without the Cleric. You'd only have two separate camps being farmed if you had a Cleric.

A group of four level 60 casters can easily power level a shared pocket cleric account to 49 for occasional CH and reses.

I am glad we finally agree on something.

[Troxx]

You seem to make a few assumptions here. One of these is outright not the case, the other is debatable.

Assumption 1: Pocket characters are allowed. The fact that the OP limited the group size to 4 and the class types to casters only implies that they want to know what the best possible set-up would be that ONLY ALLOWS 4 players and all must be casters. Not 4 casters who leveled a pocket 5th (or 6th/7th/8th/whatever) to meet the needs that couldn't be met by the 4 person limit. This assumption to me seems to be just simply wrong. Pocket classes were not to be considered. If you give up the cleric spot you permanently give up cleric rezzes/buffs and whatever else you might need or want from a cleric.

Assumption2: that the scope of this thread was only factoring level 60 and with a farm crew mentality. If that's the case it is 4 separate solo classes holding down 4 separate camps and "grouping" cooperatively in separate locations.


Assumption 1 is clearly wrong.
Assumption 2 is up for debate as the OP didn't really specify.

I interpreted this thread as a challenge of sorts. 4 friends had to get together and make new level 1s and experience EQ with the 'best possible 4 person all caster class'. This includes leveling, camping items, buying spells gear, getting TO 60. Getting those 60 spells .. and doing all the coolest things within the potential of a 4 person (4 in game character restricted) group that was all casters.

Please quit shitting around with the concept of a pocket cleric. If you drop the cleric for a shaman you have no rez, complete heal, cleric buffs, etc.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You seem to make a few assumptions here. One of these is outright not the case, the other is debatable.

Assumption 1: Pocket characters are allowed. The fact that the OP limited the group size to 4 and the class types to casters only implies that they want to know what the best possible set-up would be that ONLY ALLOWS 4 players and all must be casters. Not 4 casters who leveled a pocket 5th (or 6th/7th/8th/whatever) to meet the needs that couldn't be met by the 4 person limit. This assumption to me seems to be just simply wrong. Pocket classes were not to be considered. If you give up the cleric spot you permanently give up cleric rezzes/buffs and whatever else you might need or want from a cleric.

Assumption2: that the scope of this thread was only factoring level 60 and with a farm crew mentality. If that's the case it is 4 separate solo classes holding down 4 separate camps and "grouping" cooperatively in separate locations.


Assumption 1 is clearly wrong.
Assumption 2 is up for debate as the OP didn't really specify.

I interpreted this thread as a challenge of sorts. 4 friends had to get together and make new level 1s and experience EQ with the 'best possible 4 person all caster class'. This includes leveling, camping items, buying spells gear, getting TO 60. Getting those 60 spells .. and doing all the coolest things within the potential of a 4 person (4 in game character restricted) group that was all casters.

Please quit shitting around with the concept of a pocket cleric. If you drop the cleric for a shaman you have no rez, complete heal, cleric buffs, etc.

1. The only person making assumptions about pocket classes are yourself. Please show me where OP said they weren't allowed. Stop making things up to try and win.

2. I didn't bring up the Wizard farm crew setup, Foritor did. Please actually read the thread. This is just another example of you making things up.

You agreed in the previous post that the Enchanters don't need the Cleric to level to 60, so you have no reason to prefer the Cleric over the Shaman, other than your opinion.

If you think this group isn't going to reach level 60, group composition doesn't really matter. Four Mages could get from 1-40 just fine, and quit after getting bored.

Please stop trolling this thread with nonsense, lies, and silly gifs.

[Troxx]

1. The only person making assumptions about pocket classes are yourself. Please show me where OP said they weren't allowed.

If you are allowed to pocket whatever you want but don't have on the side what is the point of restricting this theoretical group to only 4 and only casters?

Look man, we get it. You want to be able to pocket a cleric because:

-Shamans can't complete heal
-Shamans can't buff the cleric/druid line of HP and don't have symbol
-Shamans can't stun charm breaks
-Shamans are not really effective blast healers

... and when shit hits the fan (and it will with nasty charm pets)

-Shaman's can't rez


You've just moved the goalposts again to make the entire scenario allow for your chosen class to fit into this class.

Quit being obtuse

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If you are allowed to pocket whatever you want but don't have on the side what is the point of restricting this theoretical group to only 4 and only casters?

Look man, we get it. You want to be able to pocket a cleric because:

-Shamans can't complete heal
-Shamans can't buff the cleric/druid line of HP and don't have symbol
-Shamans can't stun charm breaks
-Shamans are not really effective blast healers

... and when shit hits the fan (and it will with nasty charm pets)

-Shaman's can't rez


You've just moved the goalposts again to make the entire scenario allow for your chosen class to fit into this class.

Quit being obtuse

Here is Troxx continuing to show he doesn't know what pocket characters are. It's quite sad really. I never said you could pocket any class. The simple fact that Troxx thinks you can pocket any class shows he doesn't understand pocket characters at all. It's strange, because this has been a common practice for many years now.

He doesn't understand how Shamans work, and can't even name one camp that needs a Cleric, while I can name multiple camps that need a Shaman.

Please stop trolling, and learn the game.

[Troxx]

He doesn't understand how Shamans work...

I've got a 60 shaman. That shaman hit 60 years ago. I've solo'd ever piece of garbage you have and have done so without anything you might call "raid gear". EQ isn't hard. You're not special because you've soloed WW dragons or done small man Fungi groups in king. Many of us have done that also.

... because EQ isn't actually hard.

Only classes I haven't leveled to 60 are rog/sk/ench/wiz.

I'm not sure which project I'll take up next.

You only argue for allowing pocket clerics because YOU KNOW that without that allowance there is no reason ... whatsoever ... to EVER consider replacing a cleric with a shaman (as the sole healer) for this group.

[Troxx]

... and can't even name one camp that needs a Cleric, while I can name multiple camps that need a Shaman.

Name one.

Actually ... name every single camp out there you can think of that needs a shaman where 2x enchanter + cleric + literally any other caster would not be sufficient.

I swear to god if you name WW dragons I'm gonna laugh in your face. A necro or mage summon pet can tank a slowed WW dragon far better than a shaman ever could - and enchanters can still handle their pets getting charm dispelled periodically. Funny thing then is that a long ass shaman solo fight suddenly becomes 90-99% shorter in duration.

Nothing in this game NEEDS most classes.

I'll be impressed if you can name one single encounter in this game that is possible WITH a shaman but is impossible WITHOUT a shaman that could be done by 4 caster classes otherwise.

You threw down the gauntlet.

Ball is in your court.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Troxx is mad with a double post.

He still can't explain what a pocket character is, even though this is common practice for many years.

He still doesn't know that Shamans can Torpor tank, because he never metions it when describing how shamans work.

He can't name a camp that needs a Cleric. I've named camps that are better with a Shaman compared to a Cleric multiple times, but he doesn't read.

He constantly asks other people for evidence, while never providing any of his own. It's sad. This is why he trolls, because he can't win an argument normally. He cannot admit when he is wrong.

[Troxx]

I'd rather double post than chain edit each post for the next 30 minutes.

We all know what pocket characters are. You just seem to think they are relevant here. You only keep talking about this because you acknowledge that the value of cheal, rez and all the other things clerics do are invaluable.

To steal a line from you:

Thank you for conceding the point that a cleric is actually better than shamans for this. I appreciate you conceding that you are wrong by trying to make "pocket clerics" a thing for this.

Tally ho!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

We all know what pocket characters are.


If you know what a pocket character is, explain this:

If you are allowed to pocket whatever you want but don't have on the side what is the point of restricting this theoretical group to only 4 and only casters?


Why do you keep insisting you can pocket any class? You need to explain what a pocket character is in your view.

[bcbrown]

If one group of four can fight effectively, and another group of four can only be effective with a pocket character, the former group is better than the latter.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If one group of four can fight effectively, and another group of four can only be effective with a pocket character, the former group is better than the latter.

The group with the Shaman doesn't need the pocket cleric. Not sure where you saw me say that. But pocket clerics are easy to make, and plenty exist already. There's no reason to run a Cleric full time just for the occasional res, which is why people make pocket clerics.

If your group needs a lot of reses, you are playing poorly anyway, regardless of the team comp. You need to fix the skill issues, rather than rely on the Cleric to res you all the time.

The idea is that the pocket cleric is rarely used, because you shouldn't need a lot of reses to begin with. It's more of a convenience that a lot of people already take advantage of. With the Shaman tanking, the pets don't need lots of healing either.

A 60 Torpor Shaman isn't a pocket character. It's better to have 4 level 60 characters that aren't pocket characters, and then pocket the classes that are easy to do so.

This is because it takes less time and money to make a 49 cleric or a 55 mage. It's really that simple. You also don't want to share your account information for a main character that has a lot of time and money put into it.

[Troxx]

If one group of four can fight effectively, and another group of four can only be effective with a pocket character, the former group is better than the latter.

this?

[Troxx]

Lol DSM is the Marjorie Talyor Greene and Lauren Boebert of p99?

[Troxx]

Actually ... name every single camp out there you can think of that needs a shaman where 2x enchanter + cleric + literally any other caster would not be sufficient.

Do it.

What named?

What camp?

You will not and can not because it does not exist.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Do it.

What named?

What camp?

You will not and can not because it does not exist.

I already did multiple times. Shaman is better for Fungi King and West Waste Dragons compared to a Cleric. Those are two easy examples. You have yet to name a camp a Cleric is better at, or needed at. As usual, you never provide anything, and just keep asking for evidence after it's already provided.

Just look at the Mage DPS debate. You still haven't posted the logs, and I posted multiple videos with logs for my Shaman points.

You haven't explained what a pocket character is either. You clearly don't know what pocket characters are, since you keep insisting they can be any character for some strange reason.

The reality is you are afraid to be wrong, so you don't want to put any information out. It's sad. It's ok to admit you were wrong sometimes.

[Troxx]

I already did multiple times. Shaman is better for Fungi King and West Waste Dragons compared to a Cleric.

"Better" (subjective) is not the same as "needs a shaman". Congratulations. You have come up with 2 situations that are subjectively easier with a shaman. I could assert that either could actually be better with a CLERIC when you have 2x enchanters + another actually good caster class.

Fungi? Biggest issue there is actually the PULL. Cleric with DA to help a NECROMANCER split is actually a hell of a lot better than what a shaman could do.

Sorry you failed.

Thank you for conceding DSM....

God that's gotta hurt!

Thank you for conceding DSM!

DSM has conceded!!!

DSM HAS CONCEDED SO THREAD IS OVER!!!! REJOICE!!!

Thanks for conceding DSM! Thread is over?!



Thank you for conceding. You are the MTG of p99.

Tally ho ...

[bcbrown]

I already did multiple times. Shaman is better for Fungi King and West Waste Dragons compared to a Cleric.

Perhaps better, but not required, right?

[Troxx]

Thank you for conceding.

We = done here

[DeathsSilkyMist]

"Better" (subjective) is not the same as "needs a shaman". Congratulations. You have come up with 2 situations that are subjectively easier with a shaman. I could assert that either could actually be better with a CLERIC when you have 2x enchanters + another actually good caster class.

Fungi? Biggest issue there is actually the PULL. Cleric with DA to help a NECROMANCER split is actually a hell of a lot better than what a shaman could do.

Sorry you failed.

Thank you for conceding DSM....

God that's gotta hurt!

Thank you for conceding DSM!

DSM has conceded!!!

DSM HAS CONCEDED SO THREAD IS OVER!!!! REJOICE!!!

Thanks for conceding DSM! Thread is over?!



Thank you for conceding. You are the MTG of p99.

Tally ho ...

Thank you for melting down and conceding lol. People can see this post is deranged, like so many of your other posts.

You have yet to explain what pocket characters are. Currently you seem to think they are the same as main/alt characters.

You still can't name a camp a cleric is better or needed at. If you think "better" is subjective, you are silly lol. You can say a 95/100 score is better than a 90/100 score. This is objectively true while correctly using the word "better".

[Troxx]

Thank you for conceding DSM.

As you can see DSM is a half-wit pleb. DSM is the perfect target for all internet trolls because he is an insecure man-child of sub-par intelligence .

/thread

[Troxx]

Thank you for conceding DSM

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Thank you for conceding DSM.

As you can see DSM is a half-wit pleb. DSM is the perfect target for all internet trolls because he is an insecure man-child of sub-par intelligence .

/thread

The continued rage posts prove Troxx cannot back up his points, and has completely lost. Double and triple posts inbound I imagine.

We are still waiting on the many questions asked of him, which he is too afraid to answer, due to a crippling fear of being wrong.

Troxx does not know what pocket characters are, and cannot explain why a Cleric is better than a Shaman in this format. It is merely his unsupported opinion. He is perfectly fine having an opinion. Just remember he can't back it up next time he claims it's a fact.

Thank you for conceding. You can have the last rage post(s) if you wish. Baselessly claiming I've conceded in a childish attempt to mimic me just makes you look even worse.

[Troxx]

Thank you for conceding DSM

[Troxx]

Thanks for conceding.

[Troxx]

Do it.

What named?

What camp?

You will not and can not because it does not exist.

C’mon buddy.

Name the mob or camp that NEEDS a shaman and can’t be done with a cleric.

Well?




Or….





Thank you DSM for conceding that you were wrong.

[bcbrown]

I can name multiple camps that need a Shaman.

Like what?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Like what?

You need to read the thread. Troxx is throwing a tantrum because he can't name a camp where a Cleric is needed or better than a Shaman. I asked him first, he refused to answer.

When Troxx is backed into a corner due to being unable to answer a question, he just repackages the question and repeats it. This is how he dodges hard questions. He just can't be wrong.

[bcbrown]

No no no, you said you could name multiple camps that need a shaman, but haven't done so yet. What camps need a shaman?

Troxx never said there was any camps that need a cleric.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No no no, you said you could name multiple camps that need a shaman, but haven't done so yet. What camps need a shaman?

Troxx never said there was any camps that need a cleric.

I am not sure why you keep speaking for Troxx. He is able to speak for himself.

If Troxx concedes that there are no camps that need a Cleric, great! That is off the table. This is no longer a point we need to worry about. That is the question that was being asked, which he chose to dodge many times.

I have provided multiple camps where a Shaman would be better. In the case of WW Dragons, Enchanters and Clerics alone have a very hard time with them due to AoE dispell removing charm from the pets. The pets are the tanks and DPS, so when they get dispelled, you have up to three pets and a dragon attacking the group, depending on how many Enchanters there are.

Troxx has yet to provide an example camp for where a Cleric would be better than a Shaman. This is a simple question, but many Troxx rage posts later we are none the wiser. If Troxx's postion is so easy to prove, he should do so, instead of spamming the thread.

Troxx still cannot explain what a pocket character is either.

[bcbrown]

I have provided multiple camps where a Shaman would be better.

And yet that's not what you claimed earlier:

I can name multiple camps that need a Shaman.

If you're going to claim that there's multiple camps that need a shaman, it's insufficient to provide camps where a shaman would be better. Those are entirely different claims. I'm interested in your evidence for that earlier, stronger claim.

[cyxthryth]

If you're interested in EVIDENCE from DSM to support his claims, do not hold your breath. He will only continue to demand evidence of others, and point to irrelevant/invalid things he has posted/claimed as if they are relevant/valid (when they are clearly not).

DSM, you have once again been backed into a corner by your own quotes.
You claimed you could name multiple camps that need a Shaman.
You have provided zero evidence to support that claim, therefore the claim is simply baseless - and likely untrue. The ball is in your court if you would like to provide evidence to support your claim. Or you could admit you were wrong.

It's ok to admit you were wrong sometimes.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

And yet that's not what you claimed earlier:



If you're going to claim that there's multiple camps that need a shaman, it's insufficient to provide camps where a shaman would be better. Those are entirely different claims. I'm interested in your evidence for that earlier, stronger claim.

As you can see, Bcbrown is more interested in playing word games. If you want to help Troxx, provide some evidence supporting Clerics being better than Shamans in this group composition. Everybody will learn something too!

I've made my postion clear multiple times already. Asking me to repeat myself over and over doesn't help your position.

You can have the last word if you want. It isn't helping Troxx's position, and whatever your position is.

As it stands, Troxx and Bcbrown cannot show why Clerics are better than Shamans for this scenario. It is simply their opinion, unsupported by facts.

Here are the oustanding questions Troxx is afraid to answer:

1. What camps are better with a Cleric instead of a Shaman in this four man caster group?

2. What are pocket characters, and why do you keep saying they can be any character?

If Troxx thinks Cleric is obviously better than Shaman, there is no reason for him to troll and spam the thread. He can just provide the evidence and prove me wrong.

[bcbrown]

As you can see, Bcbrown is more interested in playing word games. If you want to help Troxx, provide some evidence supporting Clerics being better than Shamans in this group composition. Everybody will learn something too!

I've made my postion clear multiple times already. Asking me to repeat myself over and over doesn't help your position.

So you admit that you cannot name any camps where a shaman is necessary. Thanks, that's all I was curious about.

[bcbrown]

-Shamans can't complete heal
-Shamans can't buff the cleric/druid line of HP and don't have symbol
-Shamans can't stun charm breaks
-Shamans are not really effective blast healers

... and when shit hits the fan (and it will with nasty charm pets)

-Shaman's can't rez

[DeathsSilkyMist]

-Shamans can't complete heal
-Shamans can't buff the cleric/druid line of HP and don't have symbol
-Shamans can't stun charm breaks
-Shamans are not really effective blast healers

... and when shit hits the fan (and it will with nasty charm pets)

-Shaman's can't rez


This is very easy to rebut.

1. Complete Heal - Troxx has admitted there are no camps where Clerics are necessary for this specific thread's restrictions. This means CH is also not necessary for this specific group composition. Shamans can Torpor tank. This means the pet's aren't taking a lot of damage, and wouldn't normally need a CH. Shamans can maintain their mana via Torpor for a long time, but Clerics will burn though mana if they need to CH multiple times in succession. Cloth casters also don't have a lot of HP. Torpor can be more mana efficient than CH when healing players with low max HP.

2. Buffs - Troxx has admitted there are no camps where Clerics are necessary for this specific thread's restrictions. This means you don't need the extra HP to survive. Torpor Shamans can keep the group alive very well without these buffs. Shamans have buffs that Clerics can't provide too. Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a powerful trio that doesn't need Cleric buffs, and does very well.

3. Stun - Two Enchanters will have the stuns covered. Shamans have other tools to help on a bad break too. Slow, Torpor, AoE Slow, and root are all effective at keeping the party alive. It is ironic that Troxx keeps undermining his own point about stuns by claiming "redundant" spells are bad.

4. Blast Healing - Troxx has admitted there are no camps where Clerics are necessary for this specific thread's restrictions. I am not sure where he thinks the blast healing would be something people just can't live without. In the case of the party getting AoE'd, Shamans can maintain their mana longer than a Cleric, and while standing. They can Torpor group members as needed to keep them up. A cloth caster group isn't meleeing, so the slow doesn't matter.

5. Res - Pocket Cleric or a Necromancer as one of the four classes have res covered. If you are dying a lot, focus on improving your skill. That will reduce the need for reses. Ideally needing res becomes a rare occurence. Otherwise camping items and XPIng is going to be tough. OP did not say pocket clerics are prohibited, and they are a common practice. Trying to fight against pocket clerics simply doesn't make sense.

[bcbrown]

You keep grading Cleric against whether or not it's necessary while grading Shaman against whether or not it's helpful.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You keep grading Cleric against whether or not it's necessary while grading Shaman against whether or not it's helpful.

This shows you haven't read my post. Please read it again. You are either trolling, or missed the point entirely.

Ideally you should actually explain your position and counter my points, instead of constantly dodging. It doesn't make you look good.

[bcbrown]

I don't have a position. I have an opinion. My opinion is that Enc/Enc/Clr/X is the best 4-man caster group if you want to start fresh on p99. Probably add necro/mage. On a completely new server, I'd want mobility in-group, so probably add a wizard. On a new server, I'd also be a little worried about early-game dps, so perhaps swap an enchanter for a necro and go enc/clr/necro/wiz.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I don't have a position. I have an opinion. My opinion is that Enc/Enc/Clr/X is the best 4-man caster group if you want to start fresh on p99. Probably add necro/mage. On a completely new server, I'd want mobility in-group, so probably add a wizard. On a new server, I'd also be a little worried about early-game dps, so perhaps swap an enchanter for a necro and go enc/clr/necro/wiz.

It's perfectly fine to have an opinion. So far you can't explain it very well. If you actually understood your own opinion, you could counter the points I made here: https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3689970&postcount=4808

I am not sure why you are so adamantly defending Troxx if you don't have a position though.

[bcbrown]

He's my alter ego.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

He's my alter ego.

As you can see, he can't explain why he thinks a Cleric is an ideal fit for this group composition. He copy pasted a post by Troxx to supposedly explain why he thinks a Cleric is an ideal fit. When I push back on this copy pasted post https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3689970&postcount=4808 , he cannot counter what I have said.

He also cannot explain why a pocket cleric doesn't work here. OP didn't say that you cannot bring pocket clerics.

[bcbrown]

You and your obsession with pockets. No one else is bringing up pockets.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You and your obsession with pockets. No one else is bringing up pockets.

As you can see, he still cannot explain why pocket characters are not allowed. Your nonsense is irrelevant.

Here are the facts:

1. OP did not exclude pocket characters from the discussion.
2. Pocket characters have been a common practice on P99 for years.

[Troxx]

Thank you for conceding DSM.

[bcbrown]

As you can see, he still cannot explain why pocket characters are not allowed. Your nonsense is irrelevant.

There's no "allowed" or "not allowed". You're free to bring up pocket characters. I'm free to find any argument relying on them unconvincing.

If there's two different group compositions, and neither is "necessary", the composition that doesn't rely upon pocket characters is better, in my opinion.

[Troxx]

can't even name one camp that needs a Cleric, while I can name multiple camps that need a Shaman.

Still waiting.

Name one camp. Do it or just admit that you were lying so we can move on.

[Jimjam]

In GoD a friend and I duoed KoS in PoSky, but needed our paladin for rez (he was wanting to switch main to necro and we liked to epic all our toons as much as possible).

Is KoS doable with low numbers on p99? Like with a 4 man caster group.

[Swish]

A-Team could do it.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Still waiting.

Name one camp. Do it or just admit that you were lying so we can move on.

Troxx can't read the thread, as the answer is already there. Simply asking people to repeat themselves isn't helping you. It just makes you look desparate. Here is the latest repetiton for reference, so hopefully you can read it https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3689961&postcount=4802 .

He'll just keep asking this even though the answer was given multiple times. He does this because he is afraid to answer questions, provide evidence, rebut points, or admit he is wrong like a normal adult.

He cannot rebut these points:

https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3689970&postcount=4808

He cannot explain what a pocket character is.
There's no "allowed" or "not allowed". You're free to bring up pocket characters.

Precisely. There is no reason to argue against them, as they are allowed, and a normal part of P99. I don't see anybody arguing that people shouldn't use mules.


If there's two different group compositions, and neither is "necessary", the composition that doesn't rely upon pocket characters is better, in my opinion.

Neither group composition relies on pocket characters, just like neither group relies on mules. Both are things that people commonly use on P99 for convenience. Stating the obvious about how P99 works shouldn't be this contentious.

[Troxx]

You’re still not doing that thing you said you could do. You stated you could name multiple camps that need a shaman.

Name one.

Just one.

I’m super curious here.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You’re still not doing that thing you said you could do. You stated you could name multiple camps that need a shaman.

Name one.

Just one.

I’m super curious here.

You need to read my previous post lol.

https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3689999&postcount=4822

Why do you keep not reading and asking the same question that's been answered? It makes you look silly.

[Troxx]

There's no "allowed" or "not allowed". You're free to bring up pocket characters. I'm free to find any argument relying on them unconvincing.

By the way, if you’re going to quote him please do not snip out the second half that provides all the relevant context and then agree “precisely” with the point he was not actually making.

You still haven’t named one single camp that requires a shaman. You claimed you could. Why won’t you? I’ll give you an off ramp here buddy. Just say “I chose the wrong words. I didn’t actually mean ‘requires a shaman’ I actually meant is easier with a shaman”.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

By the way, if you’re going to quote him please do not snip out the second half that provides all the relevant context and then agree “precisely” with the point he was not actually making.

You still haven’t named one single camp that requires a shaman. You claimed you could. Why won’t you? I’ll give you an off ramp here buddy. Just say “I chose the wrong words. I didn’t actually mean ‘requires a shaman’ I actually meant is easier with a shaman”.

You changed the word to "requires" for this post specifically, which I didn't say. I am not sure why you keep trying to play word games. Can you quote me where I said a Shaman is required for a camp?

When will you read my previous post to find your answer? I answered your question without the word "requires" multiple times, and you just keep asking.

https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3689999&postcount=4822

As for Bcbrown's quote, the first part of the quote is the relevant part. Pocket characters are allowed, and are a normal part of P99. The second part just states the obvious that he can find any argument he wants. That doesn't mean any argument is good.

I am looking at the reality of P99 and incorporating it into my assessment. I am not doing wishful thinking and assuming that people won't use pocket characters for some random reason.

[Ripqozko]

We really gonna hit 500, unbelievable

[Troxx]

He doesn't understand how Shamans work, and can't even name one camp that needs a Cleric, while I can name multiple camps that need a Shaman.

Grab a thesaurus. When used as verbs need and require are synonyms.

Why do you keep trying to change the subject. You said the above quote. If you can name multiple camps surely you’ll have an easy time naming one.

Or is it top sekrit?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Grab a thesaurus. When used as verbs need and require are synonyms.

Why do you keep trying to change the subject. You said the above quote. If you can name multiple camps surely you’ll have an easy time naming one.

Or is it top sekrit?

Thank you for admitting I didn't use the word required.

I am not sure how providing the post you requested is changing the subject. Please read it before posting again. The only thing you are doing is showing people you don't read what other people say.

https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3689999&postcount=4822

[Troxx]

Why do you keep posting a link to a post that references another post that doesn’t actually state any camp that needs/requires or for which a shaman is a necessity?

I have provided multiple camps where a Shaman would be better.

Better is subjective and debatable. That is what you said. Verbatim. You then went on to explain that a cleric will struggle with aoe’s and enchanter pets being dispelled without acknowledging that the shaman will still have to heal everyone and juggle the clerical duties when subbed in the place of the cleric.

Needs, requires or is a necessity for is more concrete and would not be debatable if true.

C’mon man. You said it. Cough it up or just admit what we all already know is true. You told a little lie to advance your argument.

Ps: As a snarky side giggle, if you are going to advocate for having a pocket cleric maybe I could advocate for every caster having 3 full bags of 10 dose wort potions so they done have to worry about WW dragon aoe damage

[Troxx]

Example of a correct use of the word need:

To tackle AoW a guild needs clerics on a tight complete heal rotation.

Another:

To not be one rounded by AoW you need to be a warrior and use defensive, because no … not just any class can survive it (even with infinite clerics healing for infinity)


:p

Example of an incorrect use of the word need:

DSM knows of any camps they need a shaman.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Why do you keep posting a link to a post that references another post that doesn’t actually state any camp that needs/requires or for which a shaman is a necessity?



Better is subjective and debatable. That is what you said. Verbatim. You then went on to explain that a cleric will struggle with aoe’s and enchanter pets being dispelled without acknowledging that the shaman will still have to heal everyone and juggle the clerical duties when subbed in the place of the cleric.

Needs, requires or is a necessity for is more concrete and would not be debatable if true.

C’mon man. You said it. Cough it up or just admit what we all already know is true. You told a little lie to advance your argument.

Ps: As a snarky side giggle, if you are going to advocate for having a pocket cleric maybe I could advocate for every caster having 3 full bags of 10 dose wort potions so they done have to worry about WW dragon aoe damage

It looks like you finally read the post! Progress!

I've healed WW dragon groups without a Cleric. There is no struggle there. The struggle comes when you have multiple enchanter pets getting charm dispelled.

In the case of a Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter group, every aoe dispell completely stops tanking and DPS. The group has to try and control multiple pets and the dragon. I'd honestly love to see you post a video of this group killing a 6+ Dragon.

You could certainly advocate for the group spending lots of money on things like wort pots, reapers, puppet strings, etc. But it is easy to counter that this isn't very efficient if you are camping things for money. You'll probably spend more than you make.

I am also not sure why you keep claiming the word "better" is subjective. When you say 95/100 is better than 90/100 with regards to a score, is that subjective?

[Troxx]

did Entariz (7/6) on beta. Pretty easy fight w/ Kunark gear/spells.

Petted 1 gnome, banked 1 gnome, and a mammoth duder. No specific reason for mammoth over higher dps gnome other than I didn't expect to need a 3rd gnome and I did.

He's a paladin so ToT works wonders for you rune/bedlamming his AE.

Open with tash on Dargon -> zone to ToV. Now, you don't get the crazy initial tash aggro when slowing him.

Go get your pets set up with charm buried and standby pet full of trash debuffs/buffs.
Keep slowed, keep ToTing, keep bedlam/rune up on self. Have memory flux + boltrans ready to go for recharm + aggro dump.

If you have a wand or strings, it would be even easier since Boltrans is a ton of mana for a few seconds quicker cast time.

Conversely, you could probably just fight him (or any other dargon) in water to avoid the AE entirely. I wasn't that smart when I did it.

Just avoid dudes who chaos breath

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280378

Why would I need to post a video of 2 chanters and a cleric and a 4th caster killing a target that can already be solo’d by one enchanter in kunark gear?

I’d acuse you of only knowing the ins and outs of shamans and shadowknights … but according to my sig there was a big thing you didn’t know about shadowknights …

It’s understandable if you don’t know how to play an enchanter.

I am also not sure why you keep claiming the word "better" is subjective. When you say 95/100 is better than 90/100 with regards to a score, is that subjective?

A person stating “Better” in circumstances that are matters of opinion and debatable …

… is subjective.

Is English a second language for you?


By the way, quit changing the subject. Name a camp that needs (requires) a shaman.

This is funny.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280378

Why would I need to post a video of 2 chanters and a cleric and a 4th caster killing a target that can already be solo’d by one enchanter in kunark gear?

I’d acuse you of only knowing the ins and outs of shamans and shadowknights … but according to my sig there was a big thing you didn’t know about shadowknights …

It’s understandable if you don’t know how to play an enchanter.



A person stating “Better” in circumstances that are matters of opinion and debatable …

… is subjective.

Is English a second language for you?


By the way, quit changing the subject. Name a camp that needs (requires) a shaman.

This is funny.

Your examole of an Enchanter soloing a 6+ Dragon is from beta, and the guy saying using puppet strings makes things essier, which aren't practical to use after the recharge nerf. I'd love to see it on current P99.

As you can see, Troxx just continues to play word games because he cannot stay on topic and provide evidence as to why a Cleric is better in this group. He has admitted you don't need the cleric, so we need to compare how Shamans and Clerics work in different scenarios. He can't find a scenario where the Cleric would be better.

[Troxx]

He says puppet strings would make it easier. He did not use puppet strings. His wording actually indicates that he did not use them.

Shamans are not the only class that can solo WW dragons.


Now imagine that instead of having multiple pets lined up …

Imagine if you had a way of completely healing them on demand when necessary …

[DeathsSilkyMist]

He says puppet strings would make it easier. He did not use puppet strings.

Shamans are not the only class that can solo WW dragons

I have videos showing how Shamans solo 6+ Dragons on current P99 after recharge nerfs.

https://youtu.be/oPxeOVuX0G8?feature=shared

Provide a video of an Enchanter doing the same. Then we can compare which class is better at doing it. This is how you prove me wrong.

[Troxx]

If you have a wand or strings, it would be even easier since Boltrans is a ton of mana for a few seconds quicker cast time.


He didn’t use strings. If he had, it would be “even easier”.

Sorry Charlie

I don’t need to watch a video of you soloing the same target I’ve solo’d many times with my own shaman in gear worse than yours.

You aren’t impressing anyone.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

He didn’t use strings. If he had, it would be “even easier”.

Sorry Charlie

I don’t need to watch a video of you soloing the same target I’ve solo’d many times with my own shaman in gear worse than yours.

You aren’t impressing anyone.

This is Troxx's problem, we see it over and over. It was the same with the JBB debate and the Mage DPS debate.

He thinks a 7 year old post about velious beta is somehow better evidence than an actual video made 2 years ago, after the recharge nerf.

He doesn't understand quality of evidence. It shows he doesn't actually know the answer, he is just blindly searching for things that he hopes will support his point.

[Penish]

any knowledgeable player would know dsm is shit 20 seconds into his vids

also lol

[Vexenu]

We have reached an impasse, where neither side of the debate can provide an example of a mob where the four man group NEEDS either a Cleric or a Shaman. I think everyone can recognize that this is because a group that already consists of ENC/ENC/XXX has the horsepower to kill just about anything possible with EITHER a Shaman or Cleric as the fourth man.

That being the case, we must consider the additional utility that each class provides. Given that Enchanters can already slow and Clerics can obviously heal, the only relevant unique ability the Shaman contributes from 1-59 is literally SoW (which you could easily get from potions). In contrast, the Cleric provides DA, ranged stuns, CH and rez, all of which are highly useful and synergize well with the group.

From this perspective, it becomes clear that the Shaman basically contributes nothing to the group besides limited healing and SoW until he acquires Torpor, at which point he can FINALLY start carrying his weight. But if you'd have gone with the Cleric, you have someone substantially contributing from 1-60. And the fact is, any group that is pushing the envelope is inevitably going to wipe on a regular basis, which makes having a rezzer in-group almost a necessity. This further tilts the argument in favor of the Cleric and against the Shaman.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

From this perspective, it becomes clear that the Shaman basically contributes nothing to the group besides limited healing and SoW until he acquires Torpor


This shows you know very little about Shamans. I'll post a more detailed rebuttal later.

[bcbrown]

Pocket Cleric is more than capable of handling the occasional res and pet CH.

I'd like to hear more about using a pocket cleric for pet CH.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Here is a more detailed explanation for what a Shaman does compared to a Cleric. Please note that people claiming Clerics are better for this group composition haven't done this type of detailed explaination.

First, let's look at levels 1-59:
================================

In reality this level range doesn't matter much, as leveling from 1-59 is easy in a four player caster group. It has already been admitted by opposition posters such as Troxx that the Enchanters can already solo the content up to 60. It's not really necessary to optimize for this level range as you are already going fast, and if you don't plan on reaching 60, group composition doesn't really matter. However, Shamans are doing a lot for this group when you want to measure performance in this level range.

1. Healing - Let's compare a few level ranges to see how Cleric and Shaman healing compares:

Level 29 - Both Shamans and Clerics have Greater Healing. This means mana efficiency on their heal spell equal for the two classes. Shamans also have +5 HP Regen that they can apply to other group members, giving them the advantage over Clerics.

Level 39 - Shamans have Greater Healing and +10 Regen, while Clerics have Superior Healing and Complete Heal. My level 52 Monk has 1800 HP. This is with 130 STA, HP items like 6/65 Rings, Epic, etc. Cloth Casters and Shamans will have less base HP at this level range. Symbol increases HP by 300 at this level. This means your characters probably aren't going to have more than 1800 HP at this level. Generally speaking you start CHing around 40% HP, which means CH's mana efficiency at 39 is around 2.5. Superior Healing's mana efficiency is 2.33 and it's cast time is faster, so you are still going to be using Superior Healing over CH. Greater Healing's mana efficiency is 2, but Shamans have +10 Regen (Chlorplast). This will make up for the slightly lower mana efficency of Greater Healing. Clerics and Shamans are basically even at this level in terms of healing.

Level 52 - Shamans have Superior healing and +15 Regen (Regrowth), while Clerics have Remedy and Complete Heal. Superior Healing + Regrowth easily keeps pace with Remedy when it comes to mana efficiency. As said before, my level 52 Monk has 1800 HP. With the newer Cleric Symbol spell giving 500 HP, players will have HP in the low 2000s. Let's say 2200 HP at best. CH has gone up to 3.3 mana effiecncy at best when healing at 40%, but Remedy is still going to be the spell of choice most of the time for the faster cast speed. Clerics have a small advantage if using CH often, but I don't really see needing to do so at this level range.

Level 59 - Shamans have Superior Healing, Regrowth, and Chloroblast, while Clerics have Complete Heal and Celestial Elixir. My level 60 Shaman with Raid Gear, 255 STA, and FoS has 2600 HP buffed. Even with the 700 HP symbol I don't see a group of Cloth casters going higher than that. Celestial Elixir has a 4 mana efficiency, and CH is roughly 4 as well when healing at 40%. You'd use Celestial Elixir over CH, except if healing a high HP pet. Clerics have the clear advantage here, but remember that this is level 59, and Shamans get Torpor at 60.

Clerics don't actually have a large healing advantage over Shamans until the upper 50s. You can't really use the argument that Shaman healing is worthless until 60. It's generally on par with Clerics for the majority of the 1-59 leveling process. When doing XP groups, you typically aren't getting heavily AoE'd, so group heals don't really come into play. They aren't as efficient as single heals unless the entire party of 4 can fully benefit from the group heal. Even healing 3 players with Word of Vigor is only 2.36 mana efficency.

2. HP Buffs - Lets compare the HP buffs at a few different level ranges:

Level 34 - Shamans gets their first Talisman spell and they get Health. You'll get at least 50 HP from the STA buff, and 150 from the Talisman Spell, so +200 total minimum. Clerics get Symbol, which is +300. So you are looking at a difference of 100 HP.

Level 44 - Shamans get their second Talisman spell, and they get Stamina. That is 250 from Talisman, and at least 75 from Stamina, for a total of 325. The newer Cleric Symbol gives 525 HP, so the difference is 200 HP.

Level 55 - Shamans get their third Talisman spell, and Riotous Health. That is 380 from Talisman, and at least 100 from Riotous, for a total of 480. The newer Cleric Symbol gives 700 HP, so the difference is 220 HP.

The HP difference between Shaman buffs and Cleric buffs isn't that large when you factor in Stamina for most levels. Shamans can also stack Inner Fire with Talisman for +20 more HP if the group cares.

3. Stat Buffs - Shamans get Stat buffs like STR, DEX, and CHA. All of these buffs improve group survivability. More CHA for the Enchanters means less lull fails. More STR means slightly faster kill speeds. Extra DEX means more procs.

4. Cannibalize - Shamans have more available resources than Clerics due to Cannibalize and Regeneration. With Regrowth and Cannibalize III alone, the Shaman has around +3000 Mana per hour over the Cleric. This is the equivalent to Flowing Thought V. This means the Shaman can easily share other group member's duties, so they can save mana and spell slots for other things. This reduces group downtime, and will be covered in more detail below.

5. Slow - Having the Shaman slow rather than the Enchanters has multiple benefits. Due to Cannibalize giving the Shaman a large amount of extra mana per hour, the Shaman can take over Slowing duties for the most part. This means Enchanters can remove Slow from their spell bar if they want, giving them an extra slot for something else and some extra mana. This also allows the Enchanters to focus more on Stuns, Charm Breaks, and CC. This will reduce the odds of bad things happening. You can also have the Shaman and the Enchanters have Slow on their bars, so they can slow multiple times simultaneously. This is good for multiple mobs causing trouble, or trying to land a Slow on a highly magic resistant mob.

6. Malo - If there are any mobs that need to have their resistances lowered, having the Malo line of spells will save the group mana due to less resists. It also stacks with Tash.

7. Pet DPS - Shamans have a pet, which adds DPS to the group for free. A level 55 Shaman pet with Shaman haste is doing roughly 17 DPS. If two Enchanters have 80 DPS pets, this is a free 10% DPS boost.

8. Shaman Slow Tanking - Shamans can tank the mobs, rather than the Pets. This offers a number of benefits. The first benefit is all pets will be attacking from behind. This means the pet that would have been tanking is increasing their DPS. Last time I checked my SK is dodge/parrying/riposting around 10% of the time, so you are getting at least a 5% DPS boost from the pet that was supposed to be tanking just from this. The second benefit is mobs prioritize players over pets when both are in melee, so it's easier to keep the mob's back to the pets. Having a player maintain correct positioning is much easier than trying to use pet commands or other methods to reposition pets when they are no longer in an optimal position. The third benefit is doing this removes the need to heal the pets generally speaking. The Shaman can focus on healing themselves. This has a bigger role at 60 with Torpor, but it removes the need to occasionally CH higher HP pets for the most part.

9. Shaman DoT/Clicky DPS - If your group wants more DPS because it is already chewing through mobs without a lot of healing, the Shaman can provide more DPS via DoTs, Epic, and/or JBB.

10. AoE Slow - Shamans get an AoE slow, which is good for quickly applying Slow to multiple enemies, and also pulling agro away from the other group members.

11. Power increases from items - Shamans can make use of Fungi Tunic and Fungi Staff, which will significantly improve how much mana they can utilize per hour. As it stands, Donald's BP of morning is at least twice as expensive as Fungi Tunic on Blue.

12. SoW - You get SoW, which increases the groups run speed, and saves the need to get JBoots or SoW Pots.

You'll get plenty of use out of a Shaman from level 1-59, and the differences between Shamans and Clerics when it comes to HP buffs and Healing is not that large for the vast majority of this level range. The Shaman's other abilities more than make up for this discrepancy and then some.

Now let's look at level 60:
================================

1. Healing - Let's compare a Torpor Shaman and Cleric healing:

Torpor's mana efficiency is 6 or 7.5, depending on if you get 1200 or 1500 HP via the server tick. Shamans also have Regrowth. Celestial Elixir has a mana efficiency of 4. Divine light has a mana efficiency of 2.6. Word of Restoration has a 3.3 mana efficiency if it heals all four group members for the full amount. Torpor has a higher mana efficiency than Cleric healing spells, excluding Complete heal. For complete heal to get above 6 mana efficiency, you need to be healing a minimum of 2400 HP, or 3000 HP when Torpor is at 7.5. Cloth Casters and Priests are typically not going to get healed for this amount, as their max HP is on the lower side, and you don't want to wait until the absolute last second to start casting CH. Pets will generally be the only target where CH is more efficient than torpor in this group composition, but Torpor tanking removes the need to CH pets for the most part, which will be described later on. This group is all casters/priests, so the attack speed slow from Torpor is not affecting them.

2. HP Buffs - Shamans get FoS and Riotous Health. Clerics have Symbol or Aego. FoS + Riotous Health is giving cloth casters +525 HP. This is only 175 HP off from Symbol. At level 60 that is really only 1 extra hit from a mob, which is providing only a very small boost to survivability. FoS + Riotous Health is 575 HP off from Aego, but the group may not want to spend the money on constantly Aegoing the whole party. That is the downside to Aego. While the HP boost is considerable compared to FoS + Riotous Health, the PP cost adds up. When you want to be cheap, the difference between FoS + Riotous Health and Symbol is minimal at 60.

3. Stat Buffs - Shamans get Stat buffs like STR, DEX, and CHA. All of these buffs improve group survivability. More CHA for the Enchanters means less lull fails. More STR means slightly faster kill speeds. Extra DEX means more procs. Shaman's also get access to Avatar. This spell is also expensive to cast, so the group may not want to spend the PP on using often. But it will provide a damage boost to pets whenever you need to maximize kill speed.

4. Cannibalize - Shamans have more available resources than Clerics due to Cannibalize, Regeneration, and Torpor. Last time I checked I was averaging 4 cannibalizes per Torpor. If you Torpor twice per minute, you are getting around 27,000 mana per hour. This is something like Flowing Thought 45. Shamans aren't always going to be Torporing non-stop, so you can say the more realistic number is around 15,000 mana per hour, or flowing Though 25. This isn't including extra Regen from Regrowth and/or Fungi Tunic. Shamans have a massive mana pool thanks to Torpor. This allows them to take on other duties so the other classes in the group can save mana and spell slots. This also allows them to be able to sustain longer than a Cleric, as a Cleric would run out of mana when needing to spend a lot of mana in a short time. This reduces group downtime, and will be covered in more detail below.

5. Slow - Having the Shaman slow rather than the Enchanters has multiple benefits. Due to Cannibalize giving the Shaman a large amount of extra mana per hour, the Shaman can take over Slowing duties for the most part. This means Enchanters can remove Slow from their spell bar if they want, giving them an extra slot for something else and some extra mana. This also allows the Enchanters to focus more on Stuns, Charm Breaks, and CC. This will reduce the odds of bad things happening. You can also have the Shaman and the Enchanters have Slow on their bars, so they can slow multiple times simultaneously. This is good for multiple mobs causing trouble, or trying to land a Slow on a highly magic resistant mob.

6. Malo - If there are mobs that need to have their resistances lowered, having the Malo line of spells will save the group mana due to less resists. It also stacks with Tash. Malo specifically is unresistable, which makes it an even better pairing with Tash. You can land Tash, land Malo, and then try to land Malosini for large MR reduction. This makes things like slowing easier on resistant mobs. This is even more important at 60, as many mobs hit hard. You want to get slow landed ASAP.

7. Pet DPS - Shamans have a pet, which adds DPS to the group for free. A level 55 Shaman pet with Shaman haste is doing roughly 17 DPS. If two Enchanters have 100 DPS pets, this is a free 8.5% DPS boost. With the Shaman pet being buffed with Enchanter Haste and Shaman Strength, this will increase a bit more.

8. Shaman Slow Tanking - Shamans can tank the mobs, rather than the Pets. This offers a number of benefits. The first benefit is all pets will be attacking from behind. This means the pet that would have been tanking is increasing their DPS. Last time I checked my SK is dodge/parrying/riposting around 10% of the time, so you are getting at least a 5% DPS boost on the pet that was supposed to be tanking just from this. The second benefit is mobs prioritize players over pets when both are in melee, so it's easier to keep the mob's back to the pets. Having a player maintain correct positioning is much easier than trying to use pet commands or other methods to reposition pets when they are no longer in an optimal position. The third benefit is doing this removes the need to heal the pets generally speaking. The Shaman can focus on healing themselves. Torpor + Slow is an incredibly effective tanking tactic. You don't need to Torpor the pets, which causes them to become slowed. The Shaman can sustain this type of tanking for a very long time too.

9. Shaman DoT/Clicky DPS - If your group wants more DPS because it is already chewing through mobs without a lot of healing, the Shaman can provide more DPS via DoTs, Epic, and/or JBB.

10. AoE Slow - Shamans get an AoE slow, which is good for quickly applying Slow to multiple enemies, and also pulling agro away from the other group members.

11. Camps where Shamans are better - Shamans have advantages over Clerics in some endgame camps. West Waste Dragons and Fungi King are two camps that come to mind. There is a reason why Fungi King camps generally prefer a setup like Shaman/Enchanter/Monk, and use pocket clerics for the occasional res. People understand that Shaman healing power is very good on most slowable mobs, which is most camps that this group composition would do. We cannot include camps that need a Cleric CHing a Warrior, as Warriors are not allowed. As you saw in the healing comparisons, Shamans are no slouch when compared to a Cleric. CH is the exception, but CH is only superior in some circumstances, depending on how much HP is healed. Shamans provide other utility besides healing too, which has been explained. Shamans also grant the group more flexibility, as they can solo things without the need to charm. If you are in an area where you don't want to charm for whatever reason, you can rely on the Shaman instead.

12. Farm crews - If you want to build a farm crew with a Wizard porting the group around, you also have more flexibility. When big targets are not up, the Enchanters and Shaman can all invidiually solo money camps. Clerics are not as effective at soloing money camps, unless the group is willing to spend a lot of money on things like Puppet Strings.The Wizard can pick everyone up when a bigger target is nearing it's spawn. This allows the group to maximize it's money gain.

13. Pocket Characters - Shamans take a lot more time and money to level to 60 and get Torpor than pocketable classes like Cleric or Mage. You want to level the Shaman with the primary group to save time in the long run, and also provide maximum utility to the group. If you want pocket characters to give your group conveniences, it takes less time to level a Cleric to 49, or a Mage to 55. This is especially true with a group of four level 60s. This will cover things like Res and CoTh. On the rare occasion where things go bad and your Enchanter Pets somehow take massive damage, you can pop onto the cleric for a quick CH. Pocket characters are a common practice on P99 and have been for years. Planning around using pocket characters is a great idea when you want to maximize your group's potential.

14. SoW - You get SoW, which increases the groups run speed, and saves the need to get JBoots or SoW Pots.

Thus far the pro-Cleric camp has not explained why a Cleric is better to any satisfactory degree. If you have 2x Enchanters, Stuns and lulls are covered. Both Shamans and Clerics have root. Pocket Clerics cover Res and the occasional CH quite easily. If your group is dying a lot, the solution is not to have a main Cleric. The solution is to get better and not die. Shamans can Torpor multiple group members too, even in AoE situations. I can keep a WW Dragon group alive without a Cleric AoE Healing. You can see my current rebuttal of Troxx and Bcbrown here: https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3689970&postcount=4808

Hopefully people will stop spamming and trolling the thread, and actually try to have a dialogue. But I am not holding my breath.

[Swish]

Shamans are great, and the best unmentioned point here is you don't have to deal with the CH chain in a raid ;)

[fortior]

Flipping from 'having a player [tank] maintain correct positioning is much easier' to 'the solution [to not having a cleric] is to get better and not die' in the same post, and wondering why people think you're a tedious debatebro playing for points.

[bcbrown]

Oh man, I massively respect that post, DSM. You put a lot of effort into that, I can tell. You deserve an equally thoughtful response. I'm sure you'll want to make some revisions in response to critiques - do you want to put that on the wiki somewhere? If nowhere else, maybe under your "talk" page? For example, here's mine: https://wiki.project1999.com/User_talk:Bcbrown

I'm going to give you a full thoughtful response later, but here's a couple of quick points of feedback:

On level 39, you mention CH efficiency against a monk, but it should be calculated against a typical enchanter charm pet - probably more like 2-4x the hp? You mention CH at 40% - my experience (City of Mist, goos, high 40s, tank with 2.5-3.5k hp), I start casting more like around 30%, with the aim of it landing around 20% hp +/- 5% - if it lands at >25%, it was too early, if it lands at <15%, it's playing dice with my tank's life.

Second, the regen line isn't very compelling in a caster group. Solo or duo/trio with a tank, it's the best, most efficient way to heal. Solo on a shaman, you obviously always want to keep regen up for canni. Solo on a druid, you can use regen to heal on the occasion you get slapped around while charming or root rotting, because sow/snare/gate means you're rarely at risk of dying from a damage spike. But when you're healing enchanters with hasted torched pets, they need to worry about damage spikes, so an immediate heal is better than a more-efficient, slower regen over time.

HP buffs while leveling - you're talking about Symbol but I don't think you're taking into account Daring/Valor/Resolution.

Dot clicky/dps: dot's don't help if you're chewing through mobs. Better comparison would be shaman/cleric nukes if there's spare mana.

[Vexenu]

DSM really just dropped a 3,000 word effort post extolling the virtues of Shaman stat buffs, regen, DoTs, tanking and pet DPS in the context of a dual Enchanter charm group...

...thus proving my point that Shamans contribute basically nothing to said group from 1-59.

Thank you for conceding, DSM.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Oh man, I massively respect that post, DSM. You put a lot of effort into that, I can tell. You deserve an equally thoughtful response. I'm sure you'll want to make some revisions in response to critiques - do you want to put that on the wiki somewhere? If nowhere else, maybe under your "talk" page? For example, here's mine: https://wiki.project1999.com/User_talk:Bcbrown

I'm going to give you a full thoughtful response later, but here's a couple of quick points of feedback:

On level 39, you mention CH efficiency against a monk, but it should be calculated against a typical enchanter charm pet - probably more like 2-4x the hp? You mention CH at 40% - my experience (City of Mist, goos, high 40s, tank with 2.5-3.5k hp), I start casting more like around 30%, with the aim of it landing around 20% hp +/- 5% - if it lands at >25%, it was too early, if it lands at <15%, it's playing dice with my tank's life.

Second, the regen line isn't very compelling in a caster group. Solo or duo/trio with a tank, it's the best, most efficient way to heal. Solo on a shaman, you obviously always want to keep regen up for canni. Solo on a druid, you can use regen to heal on the occasion you get slapped around while charming or root rotting, because sow/snare/gate means you're rarely at risk of dying from a damage spike. But when you're healing enchanters with hasted torched pets, they need to worry about damage spikes, so an immediate heal is better than a more-efficient, slower regen over time.

HP buffs while leveling - you're talking about Symbol but I don't think you're taking into account Daring/Valor/Resolution.

Dot clicky/dps: dot's don't help if you're chewing through mobs. Better comparison would be shaman/cleric nukes if there's spare mana.

Thanks. I might put it on the wiki later, that's not a bad idea.

The CH mana efficiency values are just rough values to show that CH isn't as efficient as people imagine in the lower levels, due to lower max HP's. It's going to vary based on how risky you are playing, what expansion you are in, and how good your equipment is. Classic is going to have lower HP mobs than Velious, for example. 40% health CH'es are often the norm. You can go lower, but honestly a death in the party or charmed mob is probably going to set you back more than the slight loss in efficiency. People cannot claim Shamans are vastly inferior healing-wise for a good majority of the 1-59 leveling process when looking at the rough numbers.

Regen is fine for healing in a Caster/Priest Group. If your group doesn't end up needing it, you can save mana of course. But then that shows you didn't need the more efficient heals from a Cleric anyway. The Shaman is doing just fine healing-wise already. Damage spikes aren't as bad in the lower levels, which is what we are discussing. Regen also helps more in lower levels. There's a reason why people put Fungi Tunic on every character they can, and that is +15 HP regen. +10 HP Regen is pretty nice for lower levels.

DoT DPS helps when you root/rot. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. It is a valid strategy. Nobody has proven otherwise. Trying to pretend it isn't a valid strategy is not helpful. It is the same thing with Pocket Characters. Pretending they don't exist is doing a disservice to the readers who don't care about people's personal opinions of them. Give people the options and let them decide how to play.

JBB works well as a DD spell. Clerics do not get a JBB equivalent to my knowledge. Mana DD spells from a Shaman work too if you prefer that strategy, but DoTs are more efficient, and root/rotting is valid.

Yes, I did forget the Daring/Valor/Resolution line. The HP gap widens by 130-250 HP depending on level, but this is still not enough of a gain to use it as a strong point against Shamans. Plenty of people start fights well under 100% HP, because they know they don't need all of their max HP to survive a generic XP mob encounter. This is especially true considering the other buffs Shamans provide that Clerics do not. I'd rather have less crit fails on lulls via CHA instead of a bit more max HP. Especially in higher levels when mobs will chew through 200 HP in 2 hits. If you are at a point where you are at 200 HP remaining, things have already gone sideways. Having a CHA buff also means the Enchanters can put on more +HP gear instead of +CHA gear, which will reduce the gap.

DSM really just dropped a 3,000 word effort post extolling the virtues of Shaman stat buffs, regen, DoTs, tanking and pet DPS in the context of a dual Enchanter charm group...

...thus proving my point that Shamans contribute basically nothing to said group from 1-59.

Thank you for conceding, DSM.

As you can see, Vexenu has been utterly crushed by my post, as he cannot rebut a single point. This is the real concession. I thank you for it. You have proven you don't understand the Shaman class.

Simply mimicking me just makes you look bad. But I appreciate you flatter me with mimicry!

[bcbrown]

I want to point out a couple forms of bias in your argument. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be be biased when arguing a position - I just want to take the time to emphasise that this is a subjective argument, not an objective scoring. I also want to underline that this is not the substantive argument in favor of including a cleric that you deserve, but just a few quick thoughts I wanted to jot down.

structural bias - the top-line points are all about shaman benefits, not mentioning any cleric unique abilities (as compared to shamans). No mention of stun, lull, atone, DA. This is fair for a subjective argument - but not for an objective assessment.

selective bias - level ranges provided are the ones where shamans are comparatively equal on heals. Here's an alternate perspective. From 24-29 clerics will have Greater Healing(290-300) while shamans will have Healing (100hp). Up through 51 shaman is limited to Greater Healing(270hp), while from 34 on clerics have Superior Healing (565-585) - that's double the healing per cast from 34 till 52.

redundancy bias - slows are redundant, but there's an argument about why that's still a point in favor for shamans. Stuns are redundant, but the benefits of that redundancy are dismissed.

healing metric bias - mana efficiency is not the only metric. Time efficiency matters as well.

To re-iterate, everything you wrote is perfectly reasonable as a subjective argument in favor of a position. But we've had a recurring side-discussion on whether this topic is objective or subjective and I thought it was worth noting some relevant thoughts.

[fortior]

1 throwaway line about pet CH, nothing about the DA/ae mez synergy of necro/clr, and of course pocketing. Still no reply on how pocketing a cleric works in ST but whatever. You can only come up with this stuff if you’ve never enc/clr’d

E: to explain, DSMs huge post doesn’t reveal any interest in collaboratively discussing the best 4 man group. He has a conclusion and is now repeatedly arguing for that conclusion. There’s no evenhandedness, there’s no honest pro/con list, etc.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I want to point out a couple forms of bias in your argument. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be be biased when arguing a position - I just want to take the time to emphasise that this is a subjective argument, not an objective scoring. I also want to underline that this is not the substantive argument in favor of including a cleric that you deserve, but just a few quick thoughts I wanted to jot down.

structural bias - the top-line points are all about shaman benefits, not mentioning any cleric unique abilities (as compared to shamans). No mention of stun, lull, atone, DA. This is fair for a subjective argument - but not for an objective assessment.

selective bias - level ranges provided are the ones where shamans are comparatively equal on heals. Here's an alternate perspective. From 24-29 clerics will have Greater Healing(290-300) while shamans will have Healing (100hp). Up through 51 shaman is limited to Greater Healing(270hp), while from 34 on clerics have Superior Healing (565-585) - that's double the healing per cast from 34 till 52.

redundancy bias - slows are redundant, but there's an argument about why that's still a point in favor for shamans. Stuns are redundant, but the benefits of that redundancy are dismissed.

healing metric bias - mana efficiency is not the only metric. Time efficiency matters as well.

To re-iterate, everything you wrote is perfectly reasonable as a subjective argument in favor of a position. But we've had a recurring side-discussion on whether this topic is objective or subjective and I thought it was worth noting some relevant thoughts.

You are incorrect about subjectivity. You cannot wave a magic wand and simply claim everything is subjective. Just like you cannot wave a magic wand and make people forget about pocket characters, root/rotting, or anything else that hurts your argument.

Your idea that everything is biased is also just an attempt to undermine what I have said, by repeating the word bias and hoping it sticks. If you want to claim everything is biased, you aren't exempt from that either.

In a game with inbalanced classes, fixed math, and fixes rules, there are objectively better and worse setups for this thread. Attempting to undermine facts and logic by claiming everything is subjective is not a valid form of debate.

My post specifically was about why Shamans are better. It is nonsense to claim that if an argument does not cover every possible scenario, it is not objective. This is just going back to your incorrect ideas about subjectivity. It is an underhanded attenmpt at undermining credibility, instead of going after the substance.

I am leaving it up to you Troxx, etc. to explain your position on Clerics. It is not my job to do your argument for you. I don't think people really care about level 24 healing efficiency to be honest. You need to name camps and scenarios where you think this will be significant enough to choose Cleric over Shaman if you think I missed something.

The only people arguing against spell redundancy are posters like Troxx. Having extra Slows, stuns, etc. is great. But you need to show why the extra cleric stun is significant enough to be a serious point in the debate. Thus far you have not.

If you want to talk about other facets of healing and give example camps where some heals are better than othere, please provide them.

1 throwaway line about pet CH, nothing about the DA/ae mez synergy of necro/clr, and of course pocketing. Still no reply on how pocketing a cleric works in ST but whatever. You can only come up with this stuff if you’ve never enc/clr’d

E: to explain, DSMs huge post doesn’t reveal any interest in collaboratively discussing the best 4 man group. He has a conclusion and is now repeatedly arguing for that conclusion. There’s no evenhandedness, there’s no honest pro/con list, etc.

As you can see, foritor cannot rebut any of my points either, and has thus conceded. He cannot explain why Clerics are better. You can't win a debate by saying "im disagree, therefore I win".

[fortior]

You don’t know enough about the game to assume ‘fixed rules’ (whatever that means). It took you guys like two hundred pages to find out about wizard’s alter plane: hate when I mentioned it, and so far your only response to ‘no rez lol’ has been bringing a cleric, but it doesn’t count because you said so. You think extremely highly of your game mastery and unjustly so

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You don’t know enough about the game to assume ‘fixed rules’ (whatever that means). It took you guys like two hundred pages to find out about wizard’s alter plane: hate when I mentioned it, and so far your only response to ‘no rez lol’ has been bringing a cleric, but it doesn’t count because you said so. You think extremely highly of your game mastery and unjustly so

Thus far I can explain my position, and you cannot. Simply claiming you are right is nonsense. Come back when you can rebut my points.

[fortior]

I reject your points. I categorically disagree with your posts about allowing pocketing, the value of pet ch, and the lack of cleric utility. I’m sure this will cost me points in debate class, but this isn’t a formal debate, and even if it were, you’re not adjudicating anything. Sit down. Play your shaman. Now for the people who actually do this content:

ST trash clear. Enc/clr is clear, do you go 2 encs for 2 newly createds? Necro for FD pull/safety rez? Shaman for malo? Keep in mind the ST key is not soulbound in era, you don’t want to be stranded

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I reject your points. I categorically disagree with your posts about allowing pocketing, the value of pet ch, and the lack of cleric utility. I’m sure this will cost me points in debate class, but this isn’t a formal debate, and even if it were, you’re not adjudicating anything. Sit down. Play your shaman. Now for the people who actually do this content:

ST trash clear. Enc/clr is clear, do you go 2 encs for 2 newly createds? Necro for FD pull/safety rez? Shaman for malo? Keep in mind the ST key is not soulbound in era, you don’t want to be stranded

OP did not say pocket characters are forbidden, and pocket characters are a common occurrence on P99. You cannot remove them from the discussion, no matter how hard you try. People will simply ignore this made up rule, including myself.

If you want to explain why you think Clerics are better, please do so.

[fortior]

I have done so multiple times.
Shaman upsides: malo, slow, torpor (just the big upsides)
Cleric upsides: rez, fast stun, 2x DA, paci, pet CH
Both have plenty of hp buffs to keep an enchanter safe.

DA gives you the nice and guaranteed trick of letting the cleric pacify (w or w/o donal’s bracer) and DA holding the mobs on a crit fail. The mobs will crowd around the cleric, letting the enchanters ae mez them super quickly and safely. I also value pet CH to preserve particularly valuable pets like in PoHate, SG, seb, PoM, and ST. I also value rez; I understand your idea about pockets but prefer a hard 4 class limit as the thought experiment is more interesting to me this way.

I think sleepers tomb trash and fear are the best areas for this group, aka challenging enough to want to stick together. For ST I can definitely see a place for the shaman just for malo, for fear I can’t. For ST you need pet CH and for both you really need rez. There’s no amount of skill that would make me comfortable in either zone with the theoretical risk of being stranded.

For fear, you need a wizard (unless you pocket that too…) so my team would be wiz/enc/clr/flex. For ST you need an enc/clr, you kinda want malo, you really need pet dps, and a puller would be nice, so I would add shm/nec or shm/enc to the core. If the group makeup has to stay the same, I can only see dropping the shaman for the wizard.

I always thought clerics had limited utility as well. Playing with good clerics (aka, botb winners, bis mains) really made me reconsider that. It’s a super hardy, versatile class with surprisingly good CC in paci/atone and two DAs is fantastic.

I prefer looking at uncommon picks in situations like these, because a lot of times oft repeated wisdom is wrong. That’s why I mentioned the xp/dkp aspect of race selection in the shaman race thread, and why I named druid and wizard in this thread since depending on the situation (is it real world? Is there competition?), mobility is absolute king.

If you wanted to really get fancy, you could use rezzing as a second bind spot by dumping corpses. This could allow you to for example: wiz/enc/enc PoH mini snipe, clr elsewhere with prepped corpses to rez people to. Obviously an edge case but there’s so many creative things you can do.

[fortior]

It’d be super interesting to brainstorm about power groups containing uncommon picks like druid, necro, mage (probably unrealistic, just so nerfed). I’m also interested in the absolute top target killable by this setup. Vindi with charm pets chain blurred to regen them?

[Duik]

DSM. Using the HP values of the dress wearers and a monk tank TOTALLY IGNORES the fact the CH cleric is targetting hasted charms with upwards of 8k. Right in the belly of CH max efficiency.
Sure your lil shaman can "solo" stuff and good on ya.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

DSM. Using the HP values of the dress wearers and a monk tank TOTALLY IGNORES the fact the CH cleric is targetting hasted charms with upwards of 8k. Right in the belly of CH max efficiency.
Sure your lil shaman can "solo" stuff and good on ya.

You aren't getting 8k hp mobs at level 39, or at 52 generally speaking. Those examples were referncing that level range. Of course CH is more effective in the mid to upper 50s, this was already stated. Please read before commenting.

[Troxx]

Thanks for the laugh.

Your points have all been thoroughly discussed in the first few hundred pages of this thread. Ironically … let us circle around to the very first reply of this thread. I wonder who it was:

Shaman Enchanter Enchanter Cleric. If you are planning on doing Fungi Tunic camp then probably swap 1 Enchanter for a Necro, so they can pull.

I’m curious on the “why” behind the fundamental shift. Clearly you saw the value of a cleric for this theoretical group. You didn’t even bother to mention leaving cleric off the table until dozens (possibly a few hundreds) of pages in. Actually, you know what? I’m not going to lie … I’m not curious about the why. I already understand it.

You lost the argument hundreds of pages ago. If a cleric is present - the shaman adds little to no value that isn’t redundant. So what’s a DSM to do after losing multiple arguments multiple times? Kick the cleric out of the group and advocate for allowing pocket clerics to be considered to cover the severe gaps in the shaman’s toolkit when managing multiple buzz-saw charm pets.

[Duik]

Thanks dsm. You hardly need to have anyone else here, you are the most conceited person I think I've ever had the misfortune to encounter either personally or virtually.

Please continue to post before thinking.

[Duik]

Shammy wiff staff of forbidden rites. FTW!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Thanks for the laugh.

Your points have all been thoroughly discussed in the first few hundred pages of this thread. Ironically … let us circle around to the very first reply of this thread. I wonder who it was:



I’m curious on the “why” behind the fundamental shift. Clearly you saw the value of a cleric for this theoretical group. You didn’t even bother to mention leaving cleric off the table until dozens (possibly a few hundreds) of pages in. Actually, you know what? I’m not going to lie … I’m not curious about the why. I already understand it.

You lost the argument hundreds of pages ago. If a cleric is present - the shaman adds little to no value that isn’t redundant. So what’s a DSM to do after losing multiple arguments multiple times? Kick the cleric out of the group and advocate for allowing pocket clerics to be considered to cover the severe gaps in the shaman’s toolkit when managing multiple buzz-saw charm pets.

I never said Clerics were bad in this group. I certainly see value in them. Discussing whether a Shaman or Cleric is better if you have to pick one is not the same thing as saying a Cleric is bad. But Clerics can be pocketed, so there is less need to main one the more I thought about it. I look at reality, where pocket clerics exist and are common practice. OP did not rule them out, so they are fair game.

As you can see, Troxx cannot rebut the points I made, or supply counter points. He just continues to concede via trolling. He's made it clear multiple times he doesn't understand the Shaman class very well.

If Troxx ever wants to actually win an argument instead of pretending to win like a child, he can read this post and attempt to rebut it https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3690058&postcount=4843

[Jimjam]

Shammy wiff staff of forbidden rites. FTW!

Don’t forget pocket cleric with second staff for recharge!!

[fortior]

I think there are situations where you'd want both a cleric and a shaman, but the question of 'best 4 man group' cannot be answered without knowing the context, since each of the following meaningfully alters which classes' abilities are top tier

- the goal (xp, plat, loot, 'hardest target killed', specific quests, etc)
- real world or in a vacuum, aka is there competition (FTE or clearing wise), do you need the ability to do many different camps if yours is taken
- does the group need to act like a cohesive group

The OP is vague on all of this which is actually a benefit, because now you can look at different sets of contexts and see where some classes shine.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I think there are situations where you'd want both a cleric and a shaman, but the question of 'best 4 man group' cannot be answered without knowing the context, since each of the following meaningfully alters which classes' abilities are top tier

- the goal (xp, plat, loot, 'hardest target killed', specific quests, etc)
- real world or in a vacuum, aka is there competition (FTE or clearing wise), do you need the ability to do many different camps if yours is taken
- does the group need to act like a cohesive group

The OP is vague on all of this which is actually a benefit, because now you can look at different sets of contexts and see where some classes shine.

There have been some great discussions here due to the lack of restrictions on OP's part for sure!

Without any specific direction, my default is what players do in reality. The goal of leveling is to get to 60 so you can play the endgame. This means the group is endgame focused. Pocket characters and mules are used, and the group is going after "normal" endgame camps that don't need a Warrior tanking. These are camps like Fungi King, Chardok, West Waste Dragons for 6+ Necks, Siren's Grotto, etc.

There are certainly a multitude of other routes that this group can take due to the lack of restriction. I am looking at the well trodden path, as people tend to gravitate towards it.

Doing things like low man ST clears is a cool idea for prismatic dragon scale MQs. It has a lofty requirement of four ST Keys, but it could be done eventually if all four group members are active in raiding guilds. Or if the group can somehow pool enough plat to buy four ST Keys.

[bcbrown]

OK DSM, I'll make the case for cleric to you. But before I start, surely you're not disagreeing with the point that Clerics synergize well with Enchanters? I want to see where I can start from a place of common aggreement.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

OK DSM, I'll make the case for cleric to you. But before I start, surely you're not disagreeing with the point that Clerics synergize well with Enchanters?

I am not sure where you are reading these things. This seems to be a common problem of yours.

Please show me where I said Clerics and Enchanters do not synergize well.

[bcbrown]

So then you agree that clerics and enchanters synergize well?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So then you agree that clerics and enchanters synergize well?

If you can't read the last post, I cannot help you. You need to be able to read what other peoole say before you can rebut them.

[bcbrown]

I'll take that as agreement.

One of the areas of synergy is with stuns. Enchanters have their own stuns, so it's not necessary, but it is helpful. If a cleric is quick with a stun, when the enchanter is interrupted or otherwise fails to get a stun off, that can save the enchanter a lot of trouble.

[fortior]

Doing things like low man ST clears is a cool idea for prismatic dragon scale MQs. It has a lofty requirement of four ST Keys, but it could be done eventually if all four group members are active in raiding guilds. Or if the group can somehow pool enough plat to buy four ST Keys.

I think PL on your server is theorycrafting a hyper low man vindi. Maybe you can do it with 4 but you’d definitely need logged characters to swap to and not lv 46 shitters

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'll take that as agreement.

One of the areas of synergy is with stuns. Enchanters have their own stuns, so it's not necessary, but it is helpful. If a cleric is quick with a stun, when the enchanter is interrupted or otherwise fails to get a stun off, that can save the enchanter a lot of trouble.

Indeed. But Enchanters can save them selves when soloing via their own stuns. As you say, it is merely helpful.

Malo reduces how often charm breaks occur, which is also helping the Enchanter when to comes to charm breaks.

The problem is reduced to "which scenario has a higher chance of saving the Enchanter". Neither party knows this answer, so it's not really clear which one is obviously better.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[cyxthryth]

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 🤣

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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.

[bcbrown]

Now that we have established that clerics have substantially better mana efficiency on healing charm pets from 34 onwards, lets talk about hp buffing our friendly casters:

At 34 shamans have Talisman of Tnarg at 150hp. Health gives 31 sta, happy to call it 50hp
At 44, Altuna gives 250. Stamina gives 40sta, or say 80hp
55 has Kragg for 380, and Riotous Health gives 50 sta or 100hp

At 34, clerics have valor at 168hp/12ac, and Symbol of Pinzarn, 224 hp
At 44, Resolution gives 232/15, and Symbol of Naltron, 406 hp
At 52, Heroic Bond is 360/18 for whole group
At 54, Symbol of Marzin gives 640hp

And of course, at 60, Aegolism gives 1100HP and 54 ac to the group.


So at 34, the shaman can buff 200hp, while the cleric is buffing 392, almost twice
At 44, the shaman can buff 330, while the cleric has 638
At 55, the shaman has 480, while the cleric has 1000hp

So at all levels the cleric can HP buff about twice as well as a shaman.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Thus far Bcbrown has repeated that Clerics have better better Heals and HP buffs. Neither of these points were in question. The healing efficiency comparison was simply to show Shamans have good healing efficiency too.

He hasn't explained why the extra healing efficiency or HP buffs are speeding up the leveling process compared to a Shaman, he is just assuming this is the case.

He can't explain why Cleric Stuns are better than Malo either.

I am disappointed thus far. I think he is just going to repeat what I have already said, without explaining why the Cleric is helping the group more, and thus a better choice.

[bcbrown]

Buddy, not once in your three thousand word magnum opus did you mention how shamans speed up the leveling process. I'm going point by point. Your first two points were healing efficiency and HP buffs. I'm trying to have the dialogue you said you wanted.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Buddy, not once in your three thousand word magnum opus did you mention how shamans speed up the leveling process. I'm going point by point. Your first two points were healing efficiency and HP buffs. I'm trying to have the dialogue you said you wanted.

You didn't read it then. Go back and read it before just repeating what I have already said.

You need to tell us why a Cleric is better. I don't think anybody wants to see you just repeat what I said across multiple posts.

We already agree that they have better HP buffs and Heals. Where is this benefit speeding up leveling compared to a Shaman?

[bcbrown]

I'm directly rebutting what you said:

Level 39 - Clerics and Shamans are basically even at this level in terms of healing. Clerics don't actually have a large healing advantage over Shamans until the upper 50s

The HP difference between Shaman buffs and Cleric buffs isn't that large

Actually - clerics have substantially better healing efficiency on charm pets. And cleric HP buffs are twice as good at all levels - since you forgot about Valor/Resolution/Heroic Bond.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'm directly rebutting what you said:


Actually - clerics have substantially better healing efficiency on charm pets. And cleric HP buffs are twice as good at all levels - since you forgot about Valor/Resolution/Heroic Bond.

There is nothing to rebut. It's fine if the numbers weren't perfect, because it doesn't change the point. We already covered Heroic Bond in a previous post. The point was Shamans can heal and supply HP buffs, and they aren't as bad as people claim on these fronts. It was simply a rebuttal of the idea that Shamans are terrible at healing or HP buffing during the leveling process.

Clerics are the ones who believe their healing and HP buffs are speeding up the leveling process from my understanding. You need to tell us why you believe this. That is how you support your position. It is what I am asking you to do.

Thus far, your only point about Clerics being better was your opinion Cleric Stun is better than Malo. But you can't support this opinion, so it's moot. This means you've provided nothing to support your position thus far after multiple posts.

When will you tell us why Clerics are better?

[bcbrown]

Clerics have better healing efficiency on charm pets. Clerics have substantially better HP buffs. Clerics have faster blast healing for group members. Clerics have stuns to support charm breaks. Clerics open up tricky pulling maneuvers with lulls and DAs. Clerics can rez, including on dungeon crawls where you can't park a pocket cleric.

If you don't want to hear any of that, that's on you.

[Elizondo]

DSM argues for the sake of arguing

The topic is irrelevant


oh the answer to the OP's question is ENC / ENC / Cleric / (Mage or Druid)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Clerics have better healing efficiency on charm pets. Clerics have substantially better HP buffs. Clerics have faster blast healing for group members. Clerics have stuns to support charm breaks. Clerics open up tricky pulling maneuvers with lulls and DAs. Clerics can rez, including on dungeon crawls where you can't park a pocket cleric.

If you don't want to hear any of that, that's on you.

But does this actually speed up leveling? Being better at something doesn't always actually help speed up leveling.

You need to show examples where a Cleric's superior healing sped up the group more than what a Shaman is offering the group, for example.

You are just repeating the same points over and over, while never explaining any of it. I can explain my positions as to why I think Shaman is better

https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3690058&postcount=4843

You can't do the same with clerics. You just repeat bullet points.

[bcbrown]

Maybe you can explain to us why you think clerics synergize well with enchanters, since you're not interested in my explanation.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Maybe you can explain to us why you think clerics synergize well with enchanters, since you're not interested in my explanation.

No, it's your turn to actually explain your position as to why you think Clerics are better in this four man group scenario. I did so with Shamans already:

https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3690058&postcount=4843

Simply repeating bullet points is not an explaination. We already got those bullet points from other posters, who also did not expand upon them. Do you even have your own opinion on this topic?

[bcbrown]

You agree that enchanters and clerics synergize well, but you reject all my points about how they synergize well.

Unless you explain why you think they synergize well I don't know what else I can tell you.

Enchanter charm pets plus cleric complete healing is a really good combo.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You agree that enchanters and clerics synergize well, but you reject all my points about how they synergize well.

Unless you explain why you think they synergize well I don't know what else I can tell you.

Enchanter charm pets plus cleric complete healing is a really good combo.

This is just a dodge.

I explained the Shaman/Enchanter synnergy here: https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3690058&postcount=4843

This supports my position for picking a Shaman.

You need to explain how the Cleric/Enchanter synnergy is more benefitial than the Shaman/Enchanter synnergy in this four man group scenario.

Thus far all you have done is repeat bullet points. If you think that is all that's needed to win, I can just compress my points into bullets and post them back. Then we would be at an impasse.

[bcbrown]

Then we would be at an impasse.

We've been at an impasse for 489 pages over almost two years, that's not going to change.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

We've been at an impasse for 489 pages over almost two years, that's not going to change.

As I predicted, Bcbrown is unable to explain his position as to why Clerics would help this group more than Shamans. He is repeating bullet points, without being able to expand on any of them.

[bcbrown]

The biggest thing a pair of enchanters need is survivability. They've got plenty of DPS with a pair of hasted dual-wielding charm pets. A cleric provides the best survivability - best hp buffs, best heals, stuns.

[Duik]

Fucken idiot.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The biggest thing a pair of enchanters need is survivability. They've got plenty of DPS with a pair of hasted dual-wielding charm pets. A cleric provides the best survivability - best hp buffs, best heals, stuns.

I've saved Enchanters from Charm breaks as a Shaman too.

You need to explain why the hp buffs, heals, and stuns are offsetting what a Shaman is doing.

Simply saying Clerics have the best heals does not actually mean your group will work worse without them when compared to a Shaman. Shamans are the best at Stamina buffs, but this by itself is not a point for Shamans.

[cyxthryth]

You need to explain why the hp buffs, heals, and stuns are offsetting what a Shaman is doing.

You "need" to provide a(ny) example of a camp that "needs" a Shaman to substantiate your claim that you can name multiple camps that "need" a Shaman:

I can name multiple camps that need a Shaman.


You also "need" to provide evidence that supports your tens/dozens/hundreds/thousands of posts in this thread in which you claimed that Shaman can/does improve group's a DPS (more than a non-epic Mage can/does) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group.


I'm not sure if you've forgotten about these things that you claimed - if so, feel free to refresh your memory at any time by re-reading as the post history is clear and visible to all.
You're simply not going to get away with making baseless, unsubstantiated claims. It's really not a good look for you.

[Elizondo]

I've saved Enchanters from Charm breaks as a Shaman too.

You need to explain why the hp buffs, heals, and stuns are offsetting what a Shaman is doing.

Simply saying Clerics have the best heals does not actually mean your group will work worse without them when compared to a Shaman. Shamans are the best at Stamina buffs, but this by itself is not a point for Shamans.

Charmed mobs already have a bazillion HP

It's about heal efficiency

Cleric > Shaman

End of discussion

Accept your defeat. It's self evident to everyone else.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Charmed mobs already have a bazillion HP

It's about heal efficiency

Cleric > Shaman

End of discussion

Accept your defeat. It's self evident to everyone else.

Shamans can Torpor tank, so the pet doesn't have to tank. This means you don't need to CH the tanking pet. What else do you have?

[Elizondo]

Shamans can Torpor tank, so the pet doesn't have to tank. This means you don't need to CH the tanking pet. What else do you have?

lol

Yea but it's better to just CH the pet and not bother with a shaman

What else do you have?

[cyxthryth]

Shamans can Torpor tank, so the pet doesn't have to tank. This means you don't need to CH the tanking pet. What else do you have?

Shaman's can't Torpor when they don't have Torpor, like during Levels 1-59- which is the majority of the game, by far - and for players who are not intending to continue to play after 60 and gear toons with level 60 spells & gear, they may never even get Torpor.

The OP did not specify that the hypothetical best all 4 person cast/priest group would continue playing after level 60, and you do not get to add specific stipulations to support your preferred class such as requiring we only consider Level 60 (where a Shaman can have Torpor).

Soooooo, I ask:

What else do you have?

Friendly reminder:

You need to explain why the hp buffs, heals, and stuns are offsetting what a Shaman is doing.

You "need" to provide an(y) example of a camp that "needs" a Shaman to substantiate your claim that you can name multiple camps that "need" a Shaman:

I can name multiple camps that need a Shaman.


You also "need" to provide evidence that supports your tens/dozens/hundreds/thousands of posts in this thread in which you claimed that Shaman can/does improve group's a DPS (more than a non-epic Mage can/does) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group.


I'm not sure if you've forgotten about these things that you claimed - if so, feel free to refresh your memory at any time by re-reading as the post history is clear and visible to all.
You're simply not going to get away with making baseless, unsubstantiated claims. It's really not a good look for you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

lol

Yea but it's better to just CH the pet and not bother with a shaman

What else do you have?

You need to prove that claim. Simply claiming so doesn't make it true.

[cyxthryth]

You need to prove that claim. Simply claiming so doesn't make it true.

Apply that to your own claims.

You need to explain why the hp buffs, heals, and stuns are offsetting what a Shaman is doing.

You "need" to provide an(y) example of a camp that "needs" a Shaman to substantiate your claim that you can name multiple camps that "need" a Shaman:

I can name multiple camps that need a Shaman.


You also "need" to provide evidence that supports your tens/dozens/hundreds/thousands of posts in this thread in which you claimed that Shaman can/does improve group's a DPS (more than a non-epic Mage can/does) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group.


I'm not sure if you've forgotten about these things that you claimed - if so, feel free to refresh your memory at any time by re-reading as the post history is clear and visible to all.
You're simply not going to get away with making baseless, unsubstantiated claims. It's really not a good look for you.

[Elizondo]

You need to prove that claim. Simply claiming so doesn't make it true.

We all play the game. It's self evident.

You're basically saying a ranger can tank too cuz you play a ranger

Sure, kinda I guess, but there are other classes that do it much better and are more preferred

2 enchanters and a cleric grouped have never said "Guys we really NEED a shaman right now"

[DeathsSilkyMist]

We all play the game. It's self evident.

You're basically saying a ranger can tank too cuz you play a ranger

Sure, kinda I guess, but there are other classes that do it much better and are more preferred

2 enchanters and a cleric grouped have never said "Guys we really NEED a shaman right now"

Claiming I have Shaman bias is silly. I could say you have Cleric bias, and we would be at an impasse.

Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a common and strong combo. They don't have a Cleric. Why does this combo work well?

[Elizondo]

Claiming I have Shaman bias is silly. I could say you have Cleric bias, and we would be at an impasse.

Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a common and strong combo. They don't have a Cleric. Why does this combo work well?

Everything is an impasse with you because you have a mental disorder and cannot admit you are ever wrong about anything

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Everything is an impasse with you because you have a mental disorder and cannot admit you are ever wrong about anything


As you can.see, he knows Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a strong combo, but doesn't want to admit it. You are the one trying to avoid being wrong. We play the same game indeed.

[cyxthryth]

Claiming I have Shaman bias is silly. I could say you have Cleric bias, and we would be at an impasse.

Anyone COULD say anything, hypothetically, but what actually matters in the context of this discussion is what we DO say.
What you DID say is that you could name multiple camps that need a Shaman.
What you DID say is that Shaman class can improve a group's DPS (better than a non-Epic Mage can) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group.

This is not an example of an impasse, it's an example of you simply making unsubstantiated claims and providing no evidence to support them.

You're simply not going to get away with making baseless, unsubstantiated claims. It's really not a good look for you.

Also, you DO have Shaman bias, this entire thread is evidence. It's not anybody else's fault if being called out about it makes you feel "silly".

Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a common and strong combo. They don't have a Cleric. Why does this combo work well?

Why wouldn't you answer the same kind of question posed to you by bcbrown regarding why you believe ENC/CLR works well together/have good synergy in a duo?

[Elizondo]

As you can.see, he knows Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a strong combo, but doesn't want to admit it. You are the one trying to avoid being wrong. We play the same game indeed.

"Best 4 person all caster/priest group"

[DeathsSilkyMist]

"Best 4 person all caster/priest group"

Tell me why Enchanter/Shaman is suddenly bad without a Monk, and cannot be translated to this scenario. Clearly you agree Enchanter/Shaman/Monk is good.

[Elizondo]

Tell me why Enchanter/Shaman is suddenly bad without a Monk, and cannot be translated to this scenario. Clearly you agree Enchanter/Shaman/Monk is good.

"Best 4 person all caster/priest group"

[DeathsSilkyMist]

"Best 4 person all caster/priest group"

Thank you for conceding. You know Enchanter/Shaman is strong combo. It's why you are refusing to answer the question. We do play the same game, where Enchanter/Shaman is a strong combo.

[cyxthryth]

conceding...refusing to answer

Claiming I have Shaman bias is silly. I could say you have Cleric bias, and we would be at an impasse.

Anyone COULD say anything, hypothetically, but what actually matters in the context of this discussion is what we DO say.
What you DID say is that you could name multiple camps that need a Shaman.
What you DID say is that Shaman class can improve a group's DPS (better than a non-Epic Mage can) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group.

This is not an example of an impasse, it's an example of you simply making unsubstantiated claims and providing no evidence to support them.

You're simply not going to get away with making baseless, unsubstantiated claims. It's really not a good look for you.

Also, you DO have Shaman bias, this entire thread is evidence. It's not anybody else's fault if being called out about it makes you feel "silly".

Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a common and strong combo. They don't have a Cleric. Why does this combo work well?

Why wouldn't you answer the same kind of question posed to you by bcbrown regarding why you believe ENC/CLR works well together/have good synergy in a duo?

[Elizondo]

Thank you for conceding. You know Enchanter/Shaman is strong combo. It's why you are refusing to answer the question. We do play the same game, where Enchanter/Shaman is a strong combo.

Conceding what?

I'm staying on topic. Maybe you should try it sometime.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Conceding what?

I'm staying on topic. Maybe you should try it sometime.

Enchanter/Shaman is off-topic?

"Best 4 person all caster/priest group"

[Elizondo]

Enchanter/Shaman is off-topic?

As you can.see, he knows Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a strong combo, but doesn't want to admit it. You are the one trying to avoid being wrong. We play the same game indeed.

[cyxthryth]

off-topic?

If you want to remain on topic, consider revisiting the following points which you have not addressed:

You "need" to provide an(y) example of a camp that "needs" a Shaman to substantiate your claim that you can name multiple camps that "need" a Shaman.

You also "need" to provide evidence that supports your tens/dozens/hundreds/thousands of posts in this thread in which you claimed that Shaman can/does improve group's a DPS (more than a non-epic Mage can/does) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group.

I'm not sure if you've forgotten about these things that you claimed - if so, feel free to refresh your memory at any time by re-reading as the post history is clear and visible to all. You're simply not going to get away with making baseless, unsubstantiated claims. It's really not a good look for you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I am glad we agree Enchanter/Shaman/Monk is a strong combo. If you knew how this combo worked, you would know removing the Monk does not diminish the power of the Enchanter/Shaman for this four person group.

You can keep pretending otherwise to dodge this, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

[cyxthryth]

You can keep pretending otherwise to dodge this, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

You can keep attempting to dodge the below, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this. Hehe. :)

You "need" to provide an(y) example of a camp that "needs" a Shaman to substantiate your claim that you can name multiple camps that "need" a Shaman.

You also "need" to provide evidence that supports your tens/dozens/hundreds/thousands of posts in this thread in which you claimed that Shaman can/does improve group's a DPS (more than a non-epic Mage can/does) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group.

I'm not sure if you've forgotten about these things that you claimed - if so, feel free to refresh your memory at any time by re-reading as the post history is clear and visible to all. You're simply not going to get away with making baseless, unsubstantiated claims. It's really not a good look for you.

[Elizondo]

I am glad we agree Enchanter/Shaman/Monk is a strong combo. If you knew how this combo worked, you would know removing the Monk does not diminish the power of the Enchanter/Shaman for this four person group.

You can keep pretending otherwise to dodge this, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

ENC / CLR is better than ENC / SHM

Change my mind

[DeathsSilkyMist]

ENC / CLR is better than ENC / SHM

Change my mind

Here are the strengths of Shaman/Enchanter:

https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3690058&postcount=4843

Do the same for Enchanter/Cleric please.

[Elizondo]

Here are the strengths of Shaman/Enchanter:

https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3690058&postcount=4843

Do the same for Enchanter/Cleric please.

I remain unconvinced

ENC / CLR still better

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I remain unconvinced

ENC / CLR still better

Thank you for conceding, you cannot back up your claims. You can of course have whatever opinion you want, but it doesn't mean you are correct.

[Elizondo]

Thank you for conceding, you cannot back up your claims. You can of course have whatever opinion you want, but it doesn't mean you are correct.

I concede nothing

ENC/ CLR clearly better

Your 'arguments' remain unpersuasive

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I concede nothing

ENC/ CLR clearly better

Your 'arguments' remain unpersuasive

I have an argument that I can point to. You do not. Thank you for the concession.

[cyxthryth]

cannot back up claims
conceding...refusing to answer
You can keep pretending otherwise to dodge this, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

Thank you for conceding you cannot back up the below claims.
You can keep attempting to dodge the below, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

You "need" to provide an(y) example of a camp that "needs" a Shaman to substantiate your claim that you can name multiple camps that "need" a Shaman.

You also "need" to provide evidence that supports your tens/dozens/hundreds/thousands of posts in this thread in which you claimed that Shaman can/does improve group's a DPS (more than a non-epic Mage can/does) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group.

I'm not sure if you've forgotten about these things that you claimed - if so, feel free to refresh your memory at any time by re-reading as the post history is clear and visible to all. You're simply not going to get away with making baseless, unsubstantiated claims. It's really not a good look for you.

[Elizondo]

I have an argument that I can point to. You do not. Thank you for the concession.

I concede nothing

ENC / CLR clearly better

Your 'argument' didn't persuade me

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Continuing to spam the thread doesn't make me look bad/wrong, or you look good/correct.

[Elizondo]

Continuing to spam the thread doesn't make me look bad, or you look good/correct.

lawl how many posts do you have in this thread

Unreal

ENC / CLR better than ENC / SHM btw

[bcbrown]

Is today the day we hit 500?

[cyxthryth]

Continuing to spam the thread doesn't make me look bad/wrong, or you look good/correct.

If the above Quote was directed toward me, I am neither spamming nor interested in how I look. I am merely continuing the discussion, by re-stating some simple irrefutable facts that DSM has not addressed.

cannot back up claims
conceding...refusing to answer
You can keep pretending otherwise to dodge this, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

Thank you for conceding you cannot back up the below claims.
You can keep attempting to dodge the below, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

You "need" to provide an(y) example of a camp that "needs" a Shaman to substantiate your claim that you can name multiple camps that "need" a Shaman.

You also "need" to provide evidence that supports your tens/dozens/hundreds/thousands of posts in this thread in which you claimed that Shaman can/does improve group's a DPS (more than a non-epic Mage can/does) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group.

I'm not sure if you've forgotten about these things that you claimed - if so, feel free to refresh your memory at any time by re-reading as the post history is clear and visible to all. You're simply not going to get away with making baseless, unsubstantiated claims. It's really not a good look for you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

lawl how many posts do you have in this thread

Unreal

ENC / CLR better than ENC / SHM btw

As you can see, this spam and nonsense will simply continue.

Everyone agrees with me and you agree with you

I'm fine with that

Incorrect.

Shamans are great, and the best unmentioned point here is you don't have to deal with the CH chain in a raid ;)

[Elizondo]

As you can see, this spam and nonsense will simply continue.

Everyone agrees with me and you agree with you

I'm fine with that

[cyxthryth]

As you can see, this spam and nonsense will simply continue.

Why? Instead of "spamming nonsense" you could simply provide evidence to support your claims. It really isn't hard hehe. :)

cannot back up claims
conceding...refusing to answer
You can keep pretending otherwise to dodge this, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

Thank you for conceding you cannot back up the below claims.
You can keep attempting to dodge the below, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

You "need" to provide an(y) example of a camp that "needs" a Shaman to substantiate your claim that you can name multiple camps that "need" a Shaman.

You also "need" to provide evidence that supports your tens/dozens/hundreds/thousands of posts in this thread in which you claimed that Shaman can/does improve a group's DPS (more than a non-epic Mage can/does) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group.

I'm not sure if you've forgotten about these things that you claimed - if so, feel free to refresh your memory at any time by re-reading as the post history is clear and visible to all. You're simply not going to get away with making baseless, unsubstantiated claims. It's really not a good look for you."

[Vexenu]

I am glad we agree Enchanter/Shaman/Monk is a strong combo. If you knew how this combo worked, you would know removing the Monk does not diminish the power of the Enchanter/Shaman for this four person group.

Shaman/Monk is a great duo, and throwing in an Enchanter is just icing on the cake. A strong duo + the strongest solo class will obviously be a capable trio.

But two can play at this game.

Enchanter/Cleric is even stronger duo than Shaman/Monk. And we can then throw in another Enchanter as icing, the same way you did with your duo. But since everyone knows that Enchanter/Cleric is a stronger duo than Shaman/Monk, our resulting trio of Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric is stronger than Shaman/Monk/Enchanter.

And given that Monk is a Shaman's best duo partner, SHM/ENC/XXX/XXX (removing the Monk since this is an all priest/caster discussion) will necessarily be weaker than ENC/ENC/CLR/XXX.

Admit it, DSM. You've lost. You must now concede, apologize to the forum, rend your garments and spend three days cloaked in sackcloth and ashes, wailing in repentance for your misdeeds.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Shaman/Monk is a great duo, and throwing in an Enchanter is just icing on the cake. A strong duo + the strongest solo class will obviously be a capable trio.

But two can play at this game.

Enchanter/Cleric is even stronger duo than Shaman/Monk. And we can then throw in another Enchanter as icing, the same way you did with your duo. But since everyone knows that Enchanter/Cleric is a stronger duo than Shaman/Monk, our resulting trio of Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric is stronger than Shaman/Monk/Enchanter.

And given that Monk is a Shaman's best duo partner, SHM/ENC/XXX/XXX (removing the Monk since this is an all priest/caster discussion) will necessarily be weaker than ENC/ENC/CLR/XXX.

Admit it, DSM. You've lost. You must now concede, apologize to the forum, rend your garments and spend three days cloaked in sackcloth and ashes, wailing in repentance for your misdeeds.

It's up to you to prove Enchanter/Cleric is better than Shaman/Enchanter! I look forward to your evidence.

[cyxthryth]

Up to you to prove it! I look forward to your evidence.

Where's your evidence that supports the below claims again? I don't see it in the hundreds/thousands of posts that you've made in this thread.
Up to you to prove you can name a camp that needs a Shaman!
Up to you to prove Shaman can/does improve a group's DPS (more than a non-epic Mage can/does) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group!
I - still - look forward to your evidence.

As you can see, this spam and nonsense will simply continue.

Why? Instead of "spamming nonsense" you could simply provide evidence to support your claims. It really isn't hard hehe. :)

cannot back up claims
conceding...refusing to answer
You can keep pretending otherwise to dodge this, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

Thank you for conceding you cannot back up the below claims.
You can keep attempting to dodge the below, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

You "need" to provide an(y) example of a camp that "needs" a Shaman to substantiate your claim that you can name multiple camps that "need" a Shaman.

You also "need" to provide evidence that supports your tens/dozens/hundreds/thousands of posts in this thread in which you claimed that Shaman can/does improve a group's DPS (more than a non-epic Mage can/does) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group.

I'm not sure if you've forgotten about these things that you claimed - if so, feel free to refresh your memory at any time by re-reading as the post history is clear and visible to all. You're simply not going to get away with making baseless, unsubstantiated claims. It's really not a good look for you.

[Elizondo]

Up to you to prove Enchanter/Cleric is better! I look forward to your evidence.

Prove to who?

We all agree

CLR / ENC better than ENC / SHM

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Prove to who?

We all agree

CLR / ENC better than ENC / SHM

Agreement does not mean it is correct. Everybody could claim the sky is orange, but they would still be wrong.

[Elizondo]

Agreement does not mean it is correct. Everybody could claim the sky is orange, but they would still be wrong.

Almost 500 pages in

Who have you converted?

[cyxthryth]

Agreement does not mean it is correct. Everybody could claim the sky is orange, but they would still be wrong.

And your below claims are still unsubstantiated (and likely false):

Up to you to prove it! I look forward to your evidence.

Where's your evidence that supports the below claims again? I don't see it in the hundreds/thousands of posts that you've made in this thread.
Up to you to prove you can name a camp that needs a Shaman!
Up to you to prove Shaman can/does improve a group's DPS (more than a non-epic Mage can/does) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group!
I - still - look forward to your evidence.

As you can see, this spam and nonsense will simply continue.

Why? Instead of "spamming nonsense" you could simply provide evidence to support your claims. It really isn't hard hehe. :)

cannot back up claims
conceding...refusing to answer
You can keep pretending otherwise to dodge this, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

Thank you for conceding you cannot back up the below claims.
You can keep attempting to dodge the below, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

You "need" to provide an(y) example of a camp that "needs" a Shaman to substantiate your claim that you can name multiple camps that "need" a Shaman.

You also "need" to provide evidence that supports your tens/dozens/hundreds/thousands of posts in this thread in which you claimed that Shaman can/does improve a group's DPS (more than a non-epic Mage can/does) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group.

I'm not sure if you've forgotten about these things that you claimed - if so, feel free to refresh your memory at any time by re-reading as the post history is clear and visible to all. You're simply not going to get away with making baseless, unsubstantiated claims. It's really not a good look for you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Almost 500 pages in

Who have you converted?

You do realize more people read than post? And who would want to post when they get attacked, trolled, and spammed relentlessly? All you are doing is dicouraging people from posting by acting like this. Instead of actually having a dialogue, you simply claim you are correct.

[bcbrown]

Clerics provide substantially better blast healing. Sometimes shit hits the fan and rapid healing is more important than mana-efficient healing. Here's the health per second figures of shaman and cleric heals:
Greater Healing - 80 HPS for cleric, 72 HPS for shaman
Superior Healing - 129 HPS for cleric, 116 HPS for shaman
Remedy, level 51 - 146 HPS
Divine Light, level 53 - 200 HPS
Chloroblast, level 55 - 128 HPS
Torpor - 300hp/tick is 50 HPS

Cleric health per second is 129 at level 50 compared to 72 for shaman. 200 to 128 at 55 onwards.

Last night I was cleric for a CoM arena group - two enchanters, a rogue, and a ranger who was pulling and tanking. We had absolutely insane DPS, and were clearing arena, the goo houses, and most of the moat. At one point one of the enchanters started getting slapped around, perhaps on a charm break. I had to chain-cast superior healing, superior healing, greater healing, with the first spell landing at about 15%, the second at about 20-25%, and the third bringing them back up to almost full.

I'm level 49, so if I was on my shaman my best heal would be greater healing. Two GH would have been 540hp, while the two SH healed over 1150. That enchanter would have died if I was on my shaman.

[Elizondo]

You do realize more people read than post? And who would want to post when they get attacked relentlessly? All you are doing is dicouraging people from posting by acting like this. Instead of actually having a dialogue, you simply claim you are correct.

You're going to have to 'prove' you converted a bunch of people that have read this thread and never posted

Can you cite one person that has actually posted within this thread who you converted. We're 500 pages in. Surely you can find one.

Good luck

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You're going to have to 'prove' you converted a bunch of people that have read this thread and never posted

Can you cite one person that has actually posted within this thread who you converted. We're 500 pages in. Surely you can find one.

Good luck

OP picked a Shaman for their four man group.

Thank you for all the feedback. I think everyone has a lot of great ideas/thoughts on this subject. We went with shaman, enchanter and 2 necros. I'm the one playing the extra necro. I could have gone enchanter or mage, but with kids/wife it's nice to just feign death and afk at a moments notice. But I do agree in theory that possibly either of those classes offered a bit more than an extra necro.

[cyxthryth]

You do realize more people read that post? And who would want to post when they get attacked relentlessly? All you are doing is dicouraging people from posting by acting like this. Instead of actually having a dialogue, you simply claim you are correct.

Who is attacking you? I am simply requesting that you provide evidence/data/etc. which supports your claims.

You have been repeatedly demanding others provide evidence to support claims THEY DIDN'T EVEN MAKE (straw men you created which you argue against instead) meanwhile you yourself have blatantly not provided evidence to support your claims.

I and other posters such as bcbrown have continuously and repeatedly attempted to get you to engage in dialogue/civil discussion, but you simply selectively choose to ignore others (such as myself and bcbrown) when they have seemingly backed you into a corner with your own quotes, having provided no evidence to support your own claims. I'll presently remind you of two of them below:


Agreement does not mean it is correct. Everybody could claim the sky is orange, but they would still be wrong.

And your below claims are still unsubstantiated (and likely false):

Up to you to prove it! I look forward to your evidence.

Where's your evidence that supports the below claims again? I don't see it in the hundreds/thousands of posts that you've made in this thread.
Up to you to prove you can name a camp that needs a Shaman!
Up to you to prove Shaman can/does improve a group's DPS (more than a non-epic Mage can/does) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group!
I - still - look forward to your evidence.

As you can see, this spam and nonsense will simply continue.

Why? Instead of "spamming nonsense" you could simply provide evidence to support your claims. It really isn't hard hehe. :)

cannot back up claims
conceding...refusing to answer
You can keep pretending otherwise to dodge this, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

Thank you for conceding you cannot back up the below claims.
You can keep attempting to dodge the below, but everybody can see it. You concede every time you dodge like this.

You "need" to provide an(y) example of a camp that "needs" a Shaman to substantiate your claim that you can name multiple camps that "need" a Shaman.

You also "need" to provide evidence that supports your tens/dozens/hundreds/thousands of posts in this thread in which you claimed that Shaman can/does improve a group's DPS (more than a non-epic Mage can/does) by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group.

I'm not sure if you've forgotten about these things that you claimed - if so, feel free to refresh your memory at any time by re-reading as the post history is clear and visible to all. You're simply not going to get away with making baseless, unsubstantiated claims. It's really not a good look for you.

[Elizondo]

OP picked a Shaman for their four man group.

They went with SHM / ENC / 2 Necros

That doesn't mean he agrees with you that ENC / SHM is better than ENC / CLR

Nice try tho

[DeathsSilkyMist]

They went with SHM / ENC / 2 Necros

That doesn't mean he agrees with you that ENC / SHM is better than ENC / CLR

Nice try tho

You asked me, and I delivered. Can't even admit you are wrong.

[cyxthryth]

You asked me, and I delivered. Can't even admit you are wrong.

Thanking everyone for the feedback isn't evidence that OP's group's SHM was influenced by your posts.
Yours in particular could have DETERRED them from playing a Shaman (and other - perhaps better, perhaps more experienced, perhaps more knowledgeable - Shaman players persuaded them), you simply do not know.
OP or the player in question could come here at any point to let us know that they did make their choice based on your input in this thread - if they do, guess what?

Agreement does not mean it is correct. Everybody could claim the sky is orange, but they would still be wrong.

This really isn't hard hehe. :)

[Elizondo]

You asked me, and I delivered. Can't even admit you are wrong.

Nah

He didn't say you convinced him that SHM / ENC is better than CLR / ENC

A 4 man group decided to pick some classes and play the game. EQ happened.

[bcbrown]

He even said he acknowledges it's probably a sub-optimal group composition, and the OP isn't even the one who picked shaman! He picked necro, so no, you did not convince him.

[Vexenu]

It's up to you to prove Enchanter/Cleric is better than Shaman/Enchanter! I look forward to your evidence.
Shaman provides the Enchanter Malo, a slightly better slow, HP buffs, a pet to off-tank during charm breaks, SoW, heals/regen and Torpor at 60. These are solid additions to bring to a single Enchanter, and no one would say otherwise. But there are some weaknesses:

- Torpor comes very late at 60 and slows the charm pet you cast it on
- SoW can be had from potions
- Malo is good at reducing/delaying charm breaks, but ultimately doesn't stop them or do anything to help the Enchanter when they happen

Now consider what the Cleric brings to the table: the strongest heals in the game, including CH at level 39 for 20pp from a vendor (compare to Shaman Torpor at 60 and basically the most expensive/in-demand spell in the game), ranged stuns to greatly reduce risk during charm breaks, better HP buffs (for Enchanter and pet, increasing CH efficiency), lull/DA combo to make breaking dangerous camps much less risky (Shaman has absolutely nothing to compete with this, the Shaman strategy is just to watch the Enchanter die on a crit resist then log your infamous pocket Cleric), and rez when things really go south.

The basic idea behind Enchanter/Cleric is that charming and the Enchanter class in general are incredibly overpowered in EQ, and that adding the Cleric simply allows you to both 1) substantially reduce the risk and danger of charming, and 2) get the most mileage out of charm pets with the equally overpowered CH spell (which also, unlike Torpor, does not nerf your charm pet DPS).

The Shaman is a great solo class with a unique playstyle, and due to its sheer power and versatility it can duo well with pretty much any other class - but the simple fact is that a Cleric offers a unique skillset that dovetails better with the Enchanter (much in the same way that the Shaman dovetails better with the Monk).

[bcbrown]

Well put, Vexenu.

[Elizondo]

Shaman provides the Enchanter Malo, a slightly better slow, HP buffs, a pet to off-tank during charm breaks, SoW, heals/regen and Torpor at 60. These are solid additions to bring to a single Enchanter, and no one would say otherwise. But there are some weaknesses:

- Torpor comes very late at 60 and slows the charm pet you cast it on
- SoW can be had from potions
- Malo is good at reducing/delaying charm breaks, but ultimately doesn't stop them or do anything to help the Enchanter when they happen

Now consider what the Cleric brings to the table: the strongest heals in the game, including CH at level 39 for 20pp from a vendor (compare to Shaman Torpor at 60 and basically the most expensive/in-demand spell in the game), ranged stuns to greatly reduce risk during charm breaks, better HP buffs (for Enchanter and pet, increasing CH efficiency), lull/DA combo to make breaking dangerous camps much less risky (Shaman has absolutely nothing to compete with this, the Shaman strategy is just to watch the Enchanter die on a crit resist then log your infamous pocket Cleric), and rez when things really go south.

The basic idea behind Enchanter/Cleric is that charming and the Enchanter class in general are incredibly overpowered in EQ, and that adding the Cleric simply allows you to both 1) substantially reduce the risk and danger of charming, and 2) get the most mileage out of charm pets with the equally overpowered CH spell (which also, unlike Torpor, does not nerf your charm pet DPS).

The Shaman is a great solo class with a unique playstyle, and due to its sheer power and versatility it can duo well with pretty much any other class - but the simple fact is that a Cleric offers a unique skillset that dovetails better with the Enchanter (much in the same way that the Shaman dovetails better with the Monk).

Not to mention the cleric can rez when things go really bad

High Elf Cleric W/ Max CHA + Enc is God Tier duo

Shaman is pitiful compared to that

[Penish]

not sure why people continue to engage this bot

lol

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The spam and nonsense continues. And they think it makes them look good.

[Penish]

you're literally retarded. hope this helps

[bcbrown]

Vexenu and I have both made substantial arguments, perhaps you can engage with him or I. Repeating my earlier post:


Clerics provide substantially better blast healing. Sometimes shit hits the fan and rapid healing is more important than mana-efficient healing. Here's the health per second figures of shaman and cleric heals:
Greater Healing - 80 HPS for cleric, 72 HPS for shaman
Superior Healing - 129 HPS for cleric, 116 HPS for shaman
Remedy, level 51 - 146 HPS
Divine Light, level 53 - 200 HPS
Chloroblast, level 55 - 128 HPS
Torpor - 300hp/tick is 50 HPS

Cleric health per second is 129 at level 50 compared to 72 for shaman. 200 to 128 at 55 onwards.

Last night I was cleric for a CoM arena group - two enchanters, a rogue, and a ranger who was pulling and tanking. We had absolutely insane DPS, and were clearing arena, the goo houses, and most of the moat. At one point one of the enchanters started getting slapped around, perhaps on a charm break. I had to chain-cast superior healing, superior healing, greater healing, with the first spell landing at about 15%, the second at about 20-25%, and the third bringing them back up to almost full.

I'm level 49, so if I was on my shaman my best heal would be greater healing. Two GH would have been 540hp, while the two SH healed over 1150. That enchanter would have died if I was on my shaman.

[Elizondo]

Lull + DA alone >

You don't even need to bring up CH

[Penish]

sub 100 iq, uses gpt to flex what little brain he has

stop engaging yolks 8)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

- Torpor comes very late at 60 and slows the charm pet

You don't understand Shamans, because you think that an Enchanter pet is tanking, and the Shaman is Torporing the pet. Thats not how it works. The Shaman tanks and torpors themselves. No need to slow the pet.

For people who want information on the benefits of Shaman/Enchanter:

https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3690058&postcount=4843

[bcbrown]

You haven't proven that a shaman torpor-tanking is better than a cleric CH-healing the pet.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You haven't proven that a shaman torpor-tanking is better than a cleric CH-healing the pet.

You are the one who has yet to explain why Clerics are better. Please stop dodging by always asking for more information, while providing none youself. You can look at the benefits of Torpor Tanking here:

https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3690058&postcount=4843

[bcbrown]

Clerics provide substantially better blast healing. Sometimes shit hits the fan and rapid healing is more important than mana-efficient healing. Here's the health per second figures of shaman and cleric heals:
Greater Healing - 80 HPS for cleric, 72 HPS for shaman
Superior Healing - 129 HPS for cleric, 116 HPS for shaman
Remedy, level 51 - 146 HPS
Divine Light, level 53 - 200 HPS
Chloroblast, level 55 - 128 HPS
Torpor - 300hp/tick is 50 HPS

Cleric health per second is 129 at level 50 compared to 72 for shaman. 200 to 128 at 55 onwards.

Last night I was cleric for a CoM arena group - two enchanters, a rogue, and a ranger who was pulling and tanking. We had absolutely insane DPS, and were clearing arena, the goo houses, and most of the moat. At one point one of the enchanters started getting slapped around, perhaps on a charm break. I had to chain-cast superior healing, superior healing, greater healing, with the first spell landing at about 15%, the second at about 20-25%, and the third bringing them back up to almost full.

I'm level 49, so if I was on my shaman my best heal would be greater healing. Two GH would have been 540hp, while the two SH healed over 1150. That enchanter would have died if I was on my shaman.

[Elizondo]

DSM is a black hole of insanity

"Water is wet"

DSM - "Prove it"

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Please show a scenario where a Cleric's extra healing power is offsetting what a Shaman is doing in the group. Better healing does not necessarily translate to more kills per hour, which is how XP groups are measured.

On a charm break you can do other things like root or slow if the situation is bad by the way. Malo may have prevented thr break too.

[bcbrown]

I just did in the post just above that you refuse to address. If I was playing a shaman, that enchanter would have died.

Surely you're not going to ask me to prove that a groupmate dieing will result in fewer kills/hour?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I just did in the post just above that you refuse to address. If I was playing a shaman, that enchanter would have died.

Surely you're not going to ask me to prove that a groupmate dieing will result in fewer kills/hour?

You are assuming the Enchanter would have died. Shamans could Slow, root, or heal in that situation to keep the Enchanter alive. Malo may have prevented the situation too.

[Vexenu]

You don't understand Shamans, because you think that an Enchanter pet is tanking, and the Shaman is Torporing the pet. Thats not how it works. The Shaman tanks and torpors themselves. No need to slow the pet.



On a charm break you can do other things like root or slow if the situation is bad by the way.

Notice how DSM always moves the goal posts and magically allows his Shaman to be doing everything all at once. In this example, he claims he is going to be tanking while also helping the Enchanter on charm breaks. One wonders if he is also root rotting 5 different mobs while doing all of this to increase DPS? Apparently anything is possible with DSM's Shaman magic!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Notice how DSM always moves the goal posts and magically allows his Shaman to be doing everything all at once. In this example, he claims he is going to be tanking while also helping the Enchanter on charm breaks. One wonders if he is also root rotting 5 different mobs while doing all of this to increase DPS? Apparently anything is possible with DSM's Shaman magic!

You can Torpor tank and cast other spells:

https://youtu.be/oPxeOVuX0G8?feature=shared

I am not sure why you think otherwise. Shamans are very versitile when played well.

[bcbrown]

It's ok to admit that there are some scenarios where a cleric can keep an enchanter alive where a shaman wouldn't have been able to do so.

The enchanter was at 60% in the blink of an eye. It would have taken a second or two just to figure out who was aggroed on him - no time for stuns or roots. If I was chain-casting greater healing like a shaman he would have died.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It's ok to admit that there are some scenarios where a cleric can keep an enchanter alive where a shaman wouldn't have been able to do so.

The enchanter was at 60% in the blink of an eye. It would have taken a second or two just to figure out who was aggroed on him - no time for stuns or roots. If I was chain-casting greater healing like a shaman he would have died.

It's ok to admit a Shaman could have saved the situation too. Heals are not your only tool for charm breaks, and Malo could have prevented it.

[bcbrown]

Charm will always break, but it's not just charm breaks. Sometimes there's a bad pull. Sometimes there's bad timing on repops in camp. Sometimes there's a train.

There's situations where rapid-fire blast healing is necessary, and a cleric is better in those situations. I gave you an actual real-world example where a shaman's healing would be insufficient.

[Vexenu]

You can Torpor tank and cast other spells:

It's easy to say this, but Mr. Murphy always tends to visit at the worst possible moment, like when you're already getting low on health, your Torpor just got interrupted and you miscast something else without noticing. That's when charm breaks. This game is simple but not easy, and when shit goes south it happens very quickly. Pretending that you have the same ability to quickly and effectively react to a charm break on a tanking Shaman versus a medding Cleric is completely asinine, but par for the course for you.
Heals are not your only tool for charm breaks. Malo could have prevented it.
This is literally akin to saying, "You don't need a seat beat in a crash, because safe driving could have prevented it." The problem is that the frequency of charm breaks is less important than your ability to quickly react to them. Because they are inevitable and will happen numerous times per play session even while using Malo. And a Cleric does a MUCH better job at assisting an Enchanter with a charm break than a Shaman.

[Duik]

Shaman/Enchanter/Monk work well because a monk doesnt have the hitpoints of a well chosen charm pet so ya pathetic (in compariison to cleric) heals will do.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Shaman/Enchanter/Monk work well because a monk doesnt have the hitpoints of a well chosen charm pet so ya pathetic (in compariison to cleric) heals will do.

Last time I checked there is an enchanter in the group. They do indeed have a fully kitted out charmed pet in this combo, and the Shaman keeps the party alive just fine.

The normal Fungi King setup is an Enchanter with a hasted/torched froggie pet, a Torpor Shaman, and a Monk puller. The Torpor Shaman slows, tanks, heals, and malos, and the Pet/Monk hit the mob from behind.

Pretending that you have the same ability to quickly and effectively react to a charm break on a tanking Shaman


I've done it before. Remember that you didn't understand the Shaman is tanking instead of the enchanter pet just a few posts ago. You thought the Shaman was Torporing a tanking pet. It is not suprising you wouldn't know this either.

[Vexenu]

I've done it before. Remember that you didn't understand the Shaman is tanking instead of the enchanter pet just a few posts ago. You thought the Shaman was Torporing a tanking pet. It is not suprising you wouldn't know this either.
I understand that perfectly well. I also understand there are plenty of times when you WON'T be Torpor tanking, like the entirety of levels 1-59, for example.

The Cleric, meanwhile, is completely mogging you with his 20pp CH spell from level 39.


The normal Fungi King setup is an Enchanter with a hasted/torched froggie pet, a Torpor Shaman, and a Monk puller. The Torpor Shaman slows, tanks, heals, and malos, and the Pet/Monk hit the mob from behind.
The fact that every fucking example you toss out is either Fungi King or WW dragons will never not be hilarious.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I understand that perfectly well. I also understand there are plenty of times when you WON'T be Torpor tanking, like the entirety of levels 1-59, for example.

The Cleric, meanwhile, is completely mogging you with his 20pp CH spell from level 39.


The fact that every fucking example you toss out is either Fungi King or WW dragons will never not be hilarious.

I provide examples, and you don't. Glad I could teach you a few things about Shamans today!

[Vexenu]

I provide examples, and you don't. Glad I could teach you a few things about Shamans today!
Allow me to instruct you.

Ogre/Troll Shaman: 15-20% XP penalty
Any race Cleric: 0% XP penalty

Shaman: Dead weight 1-59, best spell at 60 and costs $$$$
Cleric: Absolute unit 1-60, best spell at 39 and costs 20pp

Shaman: Relies on pocket Cleric to rez him
Cleric: Rezzes himself like a boss

Shaman: Virgin, malodorous, probably fat irl
Cleric: Chad, bathed in holy light, totally jacked

Enchanter/Cleric duo: ding 60 in record time, leveling in high ZEM dungeons, ez farming whatever they want
Enchanter/Shaman duo: Enchanter dumps Shaman when he realizes Shaman is a fat, useless sack of shit
Shaman: forced to solo, can barely play the game through his tears, equips GEBs and considers it the greatest moment of his life, after thousands of hours of grinding and farming, finally dings 60 and saves up enough plat to acquire Torpor...

...which he buys, while impotently seething, from the Enchanter/Cleric who farmed it months earlier (their third copy).

It didn't have to be this way, DSM. But this is the life you chose when you forsook divine service of the gods in favor of your dismal swamp magic.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Allow me to instruct you.

Ogre/Troll Shaman: 15-20% XP penalty
Any race Cleric: 0% XP penalty

Shaman: Dead weight 1-59, best spell at 60 and costs $$$$
Cleric: Absolute unit 1-60, best spell at 39 and costs 20pp

Shaman: Relies on pocket Cleric to rez him
Cleric: Rezzes himself like a boss

Shaman: Virgin, malodorous, probably fat irl
Cleric: Chad, bathed in holy light, totally jacked

Enchanter/Cleric duo: ding 60 in record time, leveling in high ZEM dungeons, ez farming whatever they want
Enchanter/Shaman duo: Enchanter dumps Shaman when he realizes Shaman is a fat, useless sack of shit
Shaman: forced to solo, can barely play the game through his tears, equips GEBs and considers it the greatest moment of his life, after thousands of hours of grinding and farming, finally dings 60 and saves up enough plat to acquire Torpor...

...which he buys, while impotently seething, from the Enchanter/Cleric who farmed it months earlier (their third copy).

It didn't have to be this way, DSM. But this is the life you chose when you forsook divine service of the gods in favor of your dismal swamp magic.

Thank you for continuing to concede via trolling. It is impressive you can write so much and say nothing.

[cyxthryth]

It is impressive you can write so much and say nothing.

You have the single highest number of posts in the thread, yet zero posts containing evidence of a Shaman root rotting adds parallel to their group, and zero posts in which you list a camp that needs a Shaman.

[Trexller]

evidence of a Shaman root rotting adds parallel to their group

anytime im playing shm and doing the CC in a group I click epic on every mob that I root

zero posts in which you list a camp that needs a Shaman.

myconid spore king

[cyxthryth]

anytime im playing shm and doing the CC in a group I click epic on every mob that I root

So what you're talking about is rooting mobs that your group has pulled/is actively trying to kill then and tossing a DoT on them, NOT your Shaman root rotting mobs parallel to the group/independently of the group. Got it. (Are you also the primary healer, and tanking for this group? Just curious!)


myconid spore king

DSM has also touted/pointed at this camp a lot himself, but the camp doesn't NEED a Shaman.

[Trexller]

So what you're talking about is rooting mobs that your group has pulled/is actively trying to kill then and tossing a DoT on them, NOT your Shaman root rotting mobs parallel to the group/independently of the group. Got it. (Are you also the primary healer, and tanking for this group? Just curious!)

yeah that's happened a few times but definitely not the workload im trying to assume as a shm in an xp group.

im also pulling, tracking spawn times, beating rogue dps, fulfilling reimbursement petitions, resolving guild disputes, poppin sick 360 no scopes, negotiating peace in the middle east and switching Biden's amphetamine cocktail with melatonin gummies

has also touted/pointed at this camp a lot himself, but the camp doesn't NEED a Shaman.

is seb king possible without a shaman? yes

is it 1000x better with a shaman? fuck yes

id take a shm over ench at seb king anytime any day even if our best dps is a paladin

but that's like the only group camp in the game where that's true

but if i can have shm and ench, also fuck yes

[Jimjam]

QUOTE=bcbrown;3690163]I'll take that as agreement.

One of the areas of synergy is with stuns. Enchanters have their own stuns, so it's not necessary, but it is helpful. If a cleric is quick with a stun, when the enchanter is interrupted or otherwise fails to get a stun off, that can save the enchanter a lot of trouble.[/QUOTE]

Specifically damageless stuns. Like a wizard has to be super careful trying to help out, whereas a cleric can just go in willy and indeed nilly.

Sorry didn’t realise how far behind i was on the discussion!!

[Jimjam]

yeah that's happened a few times but definitely not the workload im trying to assume as a shm in an xp group.

im also pulling, tracking spawn times, beating rogue dps, fulfilling reimbursement petitions, resolving guild disputes, poppin sick 360 no scopes, negotiating peace in the middle east and switching Biden's amphetamine cocktail with melatonin gummies



is seb king possible without a shaman? yes

is it 1000x better with a shaman? fuck yes

id take a shm over ench at seb king anytime any day even if our best dps is a paladin

but that's like the only group camp in the game where that's true

but if i can have shm and ench, also fuck yes

In seb king I’d want shaman and cleric tbh. Can turn into a shitshow fast.

[Trexller]

i fail to see how any combo of 4 casters can exceed the tanking and dps potential of ench ench ench cler

[Troxx]

500 pages!

https://24.media.tumblr.com/5fc51e8dcb82baece8c64dc538506e83/tumblr_mqjpblwCDZ1re1wk2o1_400.gif

[DeathsSilkyMist]

but if i can have shm and ench, also fuck yes

Agreed!

i fail to see how any combo of 4 casters can exceed the tanking and dps potential of ench ench ench cler

Dps has diminishing returns, that is why having 3x Enchanters doesn't enable any new content. This is because respawn timers exist.

If you kill Fungi King in 90 seconds instead of 120 Seconds, you aren't gaining extra Fungi King kills over the duration of your camp time. You'd have to kill Fungi King 60 times in a row to get an extra spawn, which is camping him for 30 hours straight.

Level 60's are focused on getting items, not killing waves of XP mobs. As explained in the example above, you are constrained heavily by respawn timers when camping items, regardless of kill speed.

A four man caster group is already leveling very fast. There's no reason to optimize the early game, as you'll not see the same benefits in the endgame. If the group isn't planning on leveling to 60, there isn't much point in discussing group composition. Four Mages could happily chew through levels 1-40, but you wouldn't want four Mages for endgame content.

Utility is generally better on P99 for group content, as DPS requirements are not very high on most mobs/camps, excluding raid targets. This is because the game wasn't balanced around everybody having top tier gear due to the server being stuck on the same expansion for 5+ years, or decked out charmed pets.

Finally for tanking, this group doesn't have a Warrior. This means you are fighting content that is Torpor-Tankable (it is slowable). People cannot name a camp where you need to have a Cleric CH the pet due to the mob being unslowable, yet the mob is able to be killed by CHing the pet before the Cleric runs out of mana. Even if there is one or two camps out there, pocket clerics exist. A level 49 Cleric has CH and Res, and is easy to level with four level 60s.

[cd288]

yeah that's happened a few times but definitely not the workload im trying to assume as a shm in an xp group.

im also pulling, tracking spawn times, beating rogue dps, fulfilling reimbursement petitions, resolving guild disputes, poppin sick 360 no scopes, negotiating peace in the middle east and switching Biden's amphetamine cocktail with melatonin gummies

See even if I agree with your overall EQ-specific arguments, you lose all credibility when you talk like this

[Vexenu]

From 1-59, Druid and Cleric are both significantly better duo partners for an Enchanter than a Shaman. At 60, the Shaman becomes more attractive with Torpor, but is still overall weaker than the Cleric, and in many cases the Druid would still be preferred. Sorry, DSM, but that's just the way it is. Some things will never change. That's just the way it is.

*Seamless shift into musical interlude of the 1980s Bruce Hornsby classic*

[Troxx]

Funny how we keep talking about Fungi king when the only caster who will actually want to wear a fungi tunic is the class that most here agree isn’t ideal for the group.

Truly giggle worthy

[Jimjam]

Surely, a four man caster group may be focused on getting xp? They have two slots open to rent out to 50s toons wanting to level fast. This is only partially hypothetical- remember Chardok bridge?

[Elizondo]

Imagine not willing to admit you are wrong for 2 years

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Imagine not willing to admit you are wrong for 2 years

It is indeed tragic. I can back up my arguments with evidence for two years. In two years the pro Cleric side still can't provide evidence to suport their claims, and they have more people. You'd think they would be able to provide something over this timescale.