Quote:
Originally Posted by Danth
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This is always going to make this type of debate unending because utility doesn't have a set value and doesn't show up on a convenient log parser. Different folks value it differently. I've had that argument before in game with couple of friends who had a monk and shaman duo. After a friendly competition we were all slightly surprised to see the wife and I (sk/shaman) had more kills over a 5 hour period than they did because they died a couple times and we did not. Even that could've gone the other way. At the end of the game EQ's a fairly loosely-tuned game and offers different ways of achieving success. That success *is* a finite end point: There reaches a point in any player's career where there is no more loot he cares about, where platinum no longer matters. Nearly any group discussed in this thread could reach such a point and in truth there won't be THAT much difference in how long it takes them to get there given equal effort.
Danth
|
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crede
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Yes but as a shaman is recovering the mana, so will the mage. It favors them even more because they can start nuking more heavily if you're just waiting on mobs. Going off and root rotting a bunch of mobs to increase your dps requires more actions still, and most shamans dont do this hehe.
You're not understanding diminishing returns. Saying "healing/cc is needed or you die" has nothing to do with diminishing returns. You don't need 3 healers to beat fungi king. It has a minimum amount needed then after that it becomes more and more useless.
You missed my point about Math/Logic. I never said the game wasn't built on it. I'm saying it doesn't always play out as you predict it will, because humans/users are random. Math doesn't account for a human who decides to watch netflix on the other screen in your xp group.
A lazy mage can basically dps what a non-lazy shaman is doing. Even slightly beat it. A lazy mage can send in the pet, and click velk boots. And probably put out around 80 dps on average. A shaman who decides to be just as lazy with their APM is probably doing like 30-40 dps. This is factual, because mages were designed to be a group dps class, shamans were not.
And yea, I agree, the data doesn't technically exist, but I do believe most people have an "APM bucket". If you've ever played Starcraft competitively at a high level, usually after X amount of games you're just done. It just gets tiring. EQ is definitely less APM than Starcraft, but the same point still applies. A shaman will likely hit their point of laziness sooner that a mage. And I'd bet money if we could get a sample of lets say 100 mages/shamans and record their dps over time, the shaman will lose even more ground simply due to that fact.
We aren't all robots hehe, humans are quiet lazy beings.
|
The Shaman is recovering mana much faster. It's really on a different level from the Mage. I am not sure why it is difficult to press "root" and "Epic" a few times, while running around. That is pretty simple, and most classes do it when they are soloing.
The interesting thing is you are using the "lazy player" argument (people are semi AFK watching Netflix), but you don't understand that redundancy in utility is even better in this case. If you only have one healer (a cleric), they may miss the first few seconds of a 2 pet charm break. That could easily be the difference between life and death. Having multiple healers means you have less chance that both the Shaman and the Cleric are watching Netflix at the same time. That is one place where the redundancy really shines, because even one group wipe is going to destroy whatever slight DPS lead a Mage is giving you. The other benefit to redundancy is people can only cast one spell at a time. Having the Shaman spamming slow on Fungi King means the enchanters can focus on other things like double stunning.