Quote:
Originally Posted by Crede
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It's really not a strawman point. I brought this up many pages ago when I said a shaman would have to go "bonkers" to keep up with a mage, even at 60. This makes sense, because a mage was designed specifically as a group dps class.
People are lazy, especially who play this game hehe. We look for the most efficient, laziest way to do something. That pretty much sums up human behavior in general. Why would I want to do an action every X seconds when I could be more lazy and do an action slower every Y seconds and still end up doing superior dps, even if the difference isn't gamebreaking? We also aren't all 14 years old anymore, we have jobs/lives/families and sometimes need to be semi-afk along with more distractions these days technologywise to be doing at the same time. Hell, I bet a lot of people are probably playing blue/green both at once, which results in even more lazy play when evaluated in isolation.
For me, utility has extremely diminishing returns. DPS doesn't, because more DPS just means more kills/xp/loot. If I already have an enc/cleric, I'm taking a mage 100% of the time over a shaman if I don't need Torpor and I'd bet that if you took a fairly sizable sample of players, most shaman's will lose even more ground on dps compared to a mage as time went on due to the shaman needing to play at such a higher level for longer.
You think that because this game is built on math/logic, that everything can be explained with math/logic. This is your biggest fallacy, because everything changes in application given how diverse humans are.
|
Except it simply isn't true that you would need to go "bonkers". That is the point you are missing.
A level 60 group is not pulling 70+ mobs an hour in most camps. A Shaman will have plenty of time between pulls to recover mana, go AFK, etc.
If a level 60 group is pulling 70+ mobs an hour, that means you are in an easier zone like Velks, Seb, etc., where the Shaman can go off and root/rot mobs to deal good DPS if that's what the group needs. A Shaman can easily do over 100 DPS in this scenario.
Utility does not have diminishing returns at all. If you don't have CC, Heals, etc., you die in a lot of areas hehe. Any area where you don't need CC, Heals, etc., the content is already so trivial your Mage could probably face tank the mobs themselves just fine. At that point we are talking about farming greens or something. A Shaman could again just go around root/rotting everything hehe.
It is a fact that games are built on Math and Logic. It is not a fallacy at all. It is quite easy to figure the math out if you know the variables.
The only fallacy here is people are trying to use the "people are lazy argument" to lower the DPS of a Shaman, while keeping a Mage's DPS the same. That just isn't a good argument, because a lazy Mage is going to be doing less DPS too. Whether you are intentionally doing it or not, you are trying to find a way to increase the DPS gap between a Mage and a Shaman without using actual data. You just have some fuzzy concept about what you think players do. This isn't an insult, it is simply what you are doing when you field this kind of argument. It isn't a valid argument at all, so it is not relevant to the topic at hand.
When determining a classes power, you always assume the class is being played correctly. Otherwise, you could just say Mages are bad because all they do is summon items and then AFK. That isn't what people do, but you don't actually have the data to prove this isn't the case.