[cyxthryth]

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

I think you are misreading what I said. It may be my fault for the way I worded it. I am not forcing you to play the game a specific way, nor am I saying your perspective is invalid.

I am simply pointing out that lower level content is easier than high level content. If you are mostly expecting to reach level 55 and stop, there are plenty of great group compositions that can take you there quickly. As long as you don't pick something extremely off like 4 Rogues, you will be fine.

If your group plans on just having some fun, 4 Mages is a great composition in the low levels. You will churn through mobs and level quickly. Unfortunately that group doesn't work too well once you hit 60, so you end up paying the price for that decision if you change your mind about reaching 60. That is why it is better to think about what you are going to do at 60, even if you never reach it. Then you won't have the problem of leveling a class to 60 and realizing you can't do the things you wanted with that particular class.

This is one downside to leveling a Cleric in this four man group. If you reach 60 and your group disbands, you won't be able to solo as well as a Shaman. I am not saying having a level 60 Cleric is bad in any way, but it is something you should think about. Those 3x Enchanters are going to be doing great in terms of soloing good stuff.

This thread & discussion is simply not about whether low level content is easier than high level content (which is obvious), it is not about whether "4 mages in a group together are fun or 'great' in low levels", it is not about the downsides of 1 person's class choice if the hypothetical group disbands, it is not about what group you will "be fine" with.
This discussion is simply about the "best" 4 person all caster/priest group - and a Rogue (or 4) have absolutely no place in such a group at all simply because they are NOT a Caster or a Priest, so I am not sure why you brought that class up in this discussion or what relevance you think those other particular points above have to this discussion.

Objectively, "Best" does not necessarily mean "fastest to hit level 60 (via exclusively doing constant xp grinding or otherwise)" - although that may certainly be some players'/posters' opinion of what would define the best group!

The objective "best" group MIGHT happen to get to 60 faster compared to other group compositions (particularly if the hypothetical "best" group members are all neckbeards who work from home and/or are unemployed/retired that play 8-16+ hours a day, presumably they'll get to 60 faster than groups consisting of players who play less frequently and/or for shorter play-sessions), but it certainly doesn't have to be (and is not necessarily going to be) the case that the "best" group will level up as fast as possible for sole purpose of levelling up fast / getting to 60.

The objective "best" group just might play together as a static 4-man group that only logs in one night a week for 2-6 hours and they might be more interested in experiencing particular camps or dungeons they enjoy (or that some of them don't have much experience with on Live, etc.) rather than being concerned with farming in the best ZEM zone. Regardless of the specifics, there will likely be classes (some combination of 1-4) that are able to provide the group the "best" tools to achieve the goals of the group.

In order to have a MEANINGFUL discussion about what class is or isn't OBJECTIVELY best for a given scenario and move past OPINIONS of classes in general, we simply have to start with a scenario / some agreed upon starting conditions. It is unhelpful to the discussion and hypocritical to say "I decline your preconditions" when a particular poster attempts to actually directly engage with you in discussion that is/would be RELEVANT to the thread, and it is unhelpful to the discussion & hypocritical to meanwhile continue attempting to apply your own specifications to the discussion (such as "You have to think about what a level 60 is doing" as a recent example) when the question of what is "best" remains ENTIRELY subjective and undefined at this point in the discussion due to your refusal, because if you can't agree upon a scenario/starting point, then to use your (DSM's) own verbiage "you are comparing Apples to Oranges" and you will continue to be "comparing apples to oranges" unless/until a direct comparison can actually be made in an at least somewhat defined scenario wherein one class vs another class can be measured/judged/scored etc. in some capacity, and thereby be proven/disproven to be "best" for the group's needs (again, based on what each of the FOUR characters/classes in question offers & the group's overall and/or specific goals).

Another poster (Troxx I believe it was?) wanted to compare Mage vs Shaman parses in high level group with you months ago, but you conceded / opted out / chose not to participate.... it's all in the post history. I am not sure why you adamantly refused to simply go join a group & do the things your (tens of? hundreds of?) posts were fervently claiming you could/can do. Meanwhile, you yourself - intentionally or not & knowingly or not - actively try to limit the discussion to specific scenarios which favor the Shaman class that you like to play, such as suggesting/implying that only level 60 activities matter/are relevant so that the hypothetical Shaman in the hypothetical group can have Torpor spell and gear/DPS clickies, and claiming such things as you previously claimed in earlier retorts you have posted in this thread, like essentially saying "if your group cares about doing DPS, then you have to let a Shaman root rot adjacent to the main/rest of the group otherwise you don't really care about DPS" (despite you also arguing the DPS isn't relevant anyway due to not being enough to achieve additional kills per hour), when to this day you have - still - not provided ANY evidence (even though evidence has been requested from you multiple times, by multiple posters) that you have EVER done such a thing with your Shaman in a group a single time, much less it being a common occurrence. Instead you copy/pasted a bunch of raw math which doesn't translate into real life. Many posters (myself including) communicated this information to you multiple times. It appeared that after being advised/reminded that the "data" you kept providing was irrelevant data enough times, you finally seemed to understand that simple irrefutable fact... and yet...

Here and now once again, you are back in this thread and have the nerve to make posts claiming that OTHERS need to prove you wrong and provide you with evidence.

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

Evidence please, before moving on.

You are trying to demand evidence while you have yourself provided NO relevant data/evidence of your class performing in conditions relevant to the discussion as you claimed it can/could over tens? hundreds? of posts? (Reminder: We were specifically discussing being in a HIGH level, fast-paced DPS group, with the at-the-time goal being to compare the performances of Mage vs. Shaman and you were free to use all your 60 Shaman tools/spells/clickies in that scenario, and even could've shown off your oft-mentioned root-rotting group tactic, but you opted out / conceded / chose not to participate.)

You are trying to demand evidence while you have quite clearly demonstrated - by making 1,300+ posts none of which containing any relevant evidence - that you will gladly continue to "argue" fervently and make hundreds of posts while continuing to NEVER provide ANY relevant evidence yourself?

You demanding evidence from others is almost as laughable as the following Quotes of your own blatant flip-flopping, goal-post moving & hypocrisy which you have yet to address/reply to/acknowledge/defend/challenge/attempt to refute:

DSM simply has not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute the following:

DSM has repeatedly provided copy/pastes which simply do not contain any evidence or data of his Shaman performing DPS - or any other action/activity - in an environment/context/scenario that is (or would be) relevant to the discussion; hence his copy/pastes are irrelevant to this discussion.

While DSM is - seemingly - unable or unwilling to provide relevant evidence/data that supports his many claims/statements/positions (which change when he moves the goalposts & edits his posts), I have irrefutable proof of the following, which DSM has as of yet not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute:

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self-evident - of DSM attempting to move the goalposts by bringing a 5th "pocket" character into his "arguments" (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument) pertaining to the "Best 4 person all caster/priest group" discussion":

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

OP never said you couldn't have a pocket cleric. I am not sure why people keep thinking this is not a possible route to take. Between four people it would be trivial to level a cleric to 39. It is pretty common for people to make pocket clerics on P99.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM attempted to accuse others of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum:

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

The post history is clear. You are now including cyxthryth to try and strengthen your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum argument because you have nothing else. I find it highly amusing.

Here is my reply to DSM's attempt, in which I point out to him the irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - that DSM himself attempted - laughably - to claim (intentionally or otherwise) that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum strengthened his argument when one (1) single other person seemed to agree with him:

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

I think since my post is general, then there was never a goalpost to begin with. Best is whatever you personally think best means.

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

Having multiple conversations simultaneously is not moving goalposts. Talking about pocket clerics when OP didn't specify that was outside of the scope is not moving goalposts. OP's question was general, and he has said as much.

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

Your post would seem to betray that you are aware that you have moved goalposts, because you are now attempting (disingenuously) to validate said goalpost-moving by stating that it is objectively true that the OP's post "is general" and that this somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts" by changing the basis of the discussion (from being about 4 priests/casters, to being about 4 priests/casters plus X amount of pocket Clerics, or other pocket classes). It is not objectively true that you are "not moving the goalposts" just because you and OP both agree that the OP's post "was general" and that that somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts". That is simply you - laughably - claiming you (and OP) are correct due to argumentum ad populum hehe. This really isn't hard.

Please clarify what you mean by stating OP's post "was general"?

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM has claimed:

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

Assuming your group plays correctly, you will DPS the same way every time, the same as if you were solo.

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

I am very confident it won't change in a group scenario.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM has also claimed:

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

in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data

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

Once you add in outside variables, that changes the DPS equation NOT because of what the class can do, but because of what other players are doing.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM's post in which he claimed Troxx's numbers were way different from Allishia's:

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

Also Allishia's numbers were way different from yours

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM's post to Allishia when they provided their initial data in which he claimed Allishia's numbers were the same as Troxx's:

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

Thanks for the data! I'll get the logs from you a bit later today. Just looking at it here, the numbers are the same as Troxx's data.

As I have repeatedly stated - it is not always clear to other posters what particular position/claim/"argument"(s) DSM is defending at any given time due to how often he has moved the goalposts & edited his posts.

For these reasons - which I have repeatedly stated - I am not sure which particular/specific belief/claim/stance/"argument"(s) that DSM is currently holding/defending/"arguing"; it would be helpful if he could elaborate/clarify/specify for the sake of civil discussion.

I am also not sure why DSM has continued to copy/paste his - irrelevant - data, after this exchange occured - which cannot be refuted & is visible and clear in the cleary visible post history - which DSM simply has as of yet not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute

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

The reason why I am reposting the information is because the trolls are trying to hide the information.

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

No. The content of your post seems to include a claim that "the trolls" are trying to "hide the information". The first problem is that your post would seem to indicate that you believe that information will be "hidden" if additional posts are made - that is objectively false/incorrect DSM. Even if additional posts are made after a specific post, the post history is - and will remain - clear hehe.

Now that you have been advised and/or reminded of this irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - you should not need to continue to copy/paste to make sure your posts do not get "hidden" hehe.

I am also not sure why your post(s) would seemingly indicate that you think that the particular data/information that you keep providing in your copy/pasted posts - which includes data/information of your Shaman's performance in an environment/context/scenario that is contrary to the environment/context/scenario relevant to this discussion, as has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple posters - is somehow relevant to this discussion. It is not. It is simply irrelevant for reasons explained in multiple posts by multiple posters (including in this very post).

Even though DSM ultimately - without addressing/replying to/acknowledging/defending/challenging/attempting to refute the above - seemingly conceded by stating the following on 9/18/2022:

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

This will be my last post

DSM has recently returned to this thread & has proceeded posting additional replies - to posters other than myself. This would seemingly indicate DSM has chosen to return to this civil discussion. DSM - of course - still has not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute the aforementioned above quotes, and as is clearly visible in the post history DSM has continued to label me and/or my posts as "a troll"/"trolling", without providing the definition of "troll" / "trolling" that he is using (nor what he meant by stating that OP's post "was general"), and whilst providing zero evidence to support his claims of my being a troll/trolling.

The ball is - still - in DSM's court if he has relevant, factual data to support his various positions/claims/"argument"(s) - and is willing to clarify which particular position/claim/argument(s) he currently holds/"argues", as they change when he moves goalposts or edits his posts - and/or if he would like to provide the definitions he is using for "troll"/"trolling", "nonsense", "silly", "vitriol", "new" and "win" for the sake of civil discussin hehe.