Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Omg I just died laughing

It's sad that you did, because the example is horribly wrong. It is such an obvious strawman that it just makes you and Vexenu look silly[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's a good thing though. It shows everybody that you don't understand math problems, because you think a real life situation such as a runner running towards a specific location is the exact same thing as a video game where the math never changes, the rules are fixed, and it is a much simpler world. You are also expending a lot less energy as a whole.

Running long distances is much harder and more complex than playing a video game for a few hours lol.

When you can't win with evidence, you got back to trolling.

[Crede]

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

It's sad that you did, because the example is horribly wrong. It is such an obvious strawman that it just makes you and Vexenu look silly[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's a good thing though. It shows everybody that you don't understand math problems, because you think a real life situation such as a runner running towards a specific location is the exact same thing as a video game where the math never changes, the rules are fixed, and it is a much simpler world. You are also expending a lot less energy as a whole.

Running long distances is much harder and more complex than playing a video game for a few hours lol.

When you can't win with evidence, you got back to trolling.

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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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.

[Crede]

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

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 in most cases.

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.

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. At that point 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.

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.

[Danth]

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

For me, utility has extremely diminishing returns.

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.

(edit--for the post below)

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

... but I do believe most people have an "APM bucket".

Maybe....but equally as maybe the shaman player's already a bit manic and can simply go longer than the lazier dude who picks a magician. I definitely know shamans who are very much capable of maintaining their constant activity for hours on end, and keeping it up for years. I'm married to one such EQ'er. I sure as heck wouldn't do that, I hate shaman mechanics, I'll stick with my SK, thanks. The wife's far enough to the other end that as her health has declined and she's less physically able to play the shaman consistently anymore, she'd mostly rather not play at all than play a lower-activity character like her druid or cleric. Some people are funny like that--and because of that, for the sake of this type of discussion we might as well assume that the characters in question are being played similarly for similar lengths of time. That's really all we can control for. Likewise the magician is WAY better for limited players (kids, non-gamers, etc), dramatically better, but we can't really control for player ability either other than to passingly aknowledge that advantage.

Danth

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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.

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.

[Crede]

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

Agreed.



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 funny 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. 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.

Yea but then you have a strong mage pet to pick up the break, one that is stronger than a shaman's pet, and more dps. And moving around/rooting/rotting/positioning/canni/etc. is a lot more work than just sitting there, nuking, and sit/stand hehe.

This is a game of centimeters & milliseconds. Most are taking the DPS edge if they can get it. To most it's worth the risk of not having that double healer if it means they can get a few more DPS.

If you value this Safety utility differently, that is fine, but I don't think this applies to the majority of players. I think most would agree that 100% Necessary Utility > DPS > "Safety" Utility. I'm not claiming I'm right about this, but it's my opinion from the experiences I've had.

[Danth]

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

I think most would agree that 100% Necessary Utility > DPS > "Safety" Utility. I'm not claiming I'm right about this, but it's my opinion from the experiences I've had.

No argument; my experience agrees. Most folks tend to downplay deaths/setbacks/etc as "doesn't count." A lot of folks simply LIKE faster killspeed even if it comes with more setbacks/etc, and it's also hard to put a value on plain old fun. I'm not even calling 'em right or wrong, just it is what it is and the general preference for offense in-game is indeed noticeable. The wife and I have quite often felt like the proverbial tortise in a world of hares: Slow but consistent, getting to the end in a similar length of time because our fastest isn't as fast but we don't have as many setbacks either.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Yea but then you have a strong mage pet to pick up the break, one that is stronger than a shaman's pet, and more dps. And moving around/rooting/rotting/positioning/canni/etc. is a lot more work than just sitting there, nuking, and sit/stand hehe.

This is a game of centimeters & milliseconds. Most are taking the DPS edge if they can get it. To most it's worth the risk of not having that double healer if it means they can get a few more DPS.

If you value this Safety utility differently, that is fine, but I don't think this applies to the majority of players. I think most would agree that 100% Necessary Utility > DPS > "Safety" Utility. I'm not claiming I'm right about this, but it's my opinion from the experiences I've had.

That's where most people probably differ in this thread.

From my years of experience a bit of extra DPS isn't worth the extra risk. Most mobs have pretty low HP in this game, so kill speeds are generally fine unless you are purposely trying to make the slowest group comp you possibly could.

Even one group wipe destroys the DPS advantage of a Mage vs. a Shaman. At best you are set back 10-30 minutes (if you are lucky), at worst your group disbands hehe.

Adding 30 DPS to a group with 2x Enchanter pets is going to give you a lot less benefit than the extra utility and safety a Shaman has to offer. Never wiping is a good way to out-perform a high DPS group that is wiping.

[Crede]

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

That's where most people probably differ in this thread.

From my years of experience a bit of extra DPS isn't worth the extra risk. Most mobs have pretty low HP in this game, so kill speeds are generally fine unless you are purposely trying to make the slowest group comp you possibly could.

Even one group wipe destroys the DPS advantage of a Mage vs. a Shaman. At best you are set back 10-30 minutes (if you are lucky), at worst your group disbands hehe.

Adding 30 DPS to a group with 2x Enchanter pets is going to give you a lot less benefit than the extra utility and safety a Shaman has to offer. Never wiping is a good way to out-perform a high DPS group that is wiping.

I think you slightly overvalue utility. That very well may be your experience, but I think on average most people want to level/kill as fast as possible and they will likely take more dps with a small chance of dying over more utility with almost no chance of dying. This is because this game isn't that hard, most of us have put in the hours to master it by now, and people just want to be efficient with their time. Having potentially wasted utility is not efficient. Having more dps is always efficient if you can avoid death, which generally you can. CRs also are relatively pretty easy on this server. Almost everybody has access to a rogue/necro/sk to help retrieve their corpse or if not people are usually pretty friendly and willing to help out.