Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Yeah. A druid can then plvl this groups melee alts / twinks.

And a Shaman can open up more camps at level 60 for getting great gear to twink said alts.

[Troxx]

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

Then you wouldn't have a very useful class at 60. A lot of combinations work well in the leveling process, but then you have a 60 druid that isn't offering as much as another class.

Case could be made it’s about as useful at 60 as a shaman in this theoretical group. POTG, free clicky group regen, ports/evacs and some half decent druid nukes and DS vs a whopping 55dps with of shaman.

Maybe tox has a point?!

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok DSM we have established shamans are less than half as good as a mage. I now vote we redirect this discussion.

DSM now you gotta make the case why 55 dps worth of shaman is so much better than all the extra stacking utility Druids have compared to shamans in this theoretical group makeup!

….. and go!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Case could be made it’s about as useful at 60 as a shaman in this theoretical group. POTG, free clicky group regen, ports/evacs and some half decent druid nukes and DS vs a whopping 55dps with of shaman.

Maybe tox has a point?!

Ok DSM we have established shamans are less than half as good as a mage. I now vote we redirect this discussion.

DSM now you gotta make the case why 55 dps worth of shaman is so much better than all the extra stacking utility Druids have compared to shamans in this theoretical group makeup!

….. and go!

You didn't read the data, which is why you are sticking to the lowest DPS number possible. You are basically saying Mage DPS is bad because you won't let the Mage use their pet. Great argument.

55 DPS is assuming you aren't letting your Shaman root/rot in a group chain pulling easy mobs. Again, that is like telling the Mage they can't use their pet. Nobody cares that you don't like root/rotting in a group.

[Crede]

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

Honestly, I may even take a druid over a shaman for 1-60 leveling in that enc / enc / cleric / XXX 4 man. If you did Warrens --> Perma --> CT --> Kedge --> Chardok you could always have an animal to charm, and this is also an insanely high ZEM pathway.

Plenty of other dungeon options with animals too...plus the luxury of porting around...especially nice for an all caster group that needs to go get their spells!

I'd agree with this. If the group is willing to stick to animal zones than the druid will prove to be much more useful than the shaman.

But it really isn't hard to prove how unnecessary a shaman is in bigger group compositions. If I have a fast killing group that already has a cleric, I prefer the shaman to do the pulling so the real dps can focus on mowing down mobs.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I'd agree with this. If the group is willing to stick to animal zones than the druid will prove to be much more useful than the shaman.

But it really isn't hard to prove how unnecessary a shaman is in bigger group compositions. If I have a fast killing group that already has a cleric, I prefer the shaman to do the pulling so the real dps can focus on mowing down mobs.

You could certainly level efficiently with 4 druids, just sticking to outdoor/charming camps. But I don't think anybody is advocating for a 4 druid group.

It's also easy to prove DPS provides diminishing returns on bigger group compositions.

[Ripqozko]

We get it, you play a shaman

[Troxx]

DSM now realizing that in using his own backwards logic (dps is irrelevant since you already hit your soft cap) he now realizes he has to compete with Druids for a spot.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

-1-59 druid might just be flat out better everywhere. If you have animals to charm it’s no contest.
-at 60 the shaman is only 55 dps. Druid isn’t far behind that but has actual utility that isn’t redundant unlike the shaman.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok DSM. Make your case. We will be the judge and jury. Why is a shaman better than a druid?

…. and go!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If druids can compete for a spot, then the druid is also superior to the Mage. Again, this is not helping your argument.

It just shows you care more about excluding a Shaman (to prove me wrong) than to have a discussion.

Every class provides something unique, so of course you could include a druid and be fine. I am not sure why you think otherwise.

But we haven't been debating pure preference.

I just find it funny you finally admit my data is valid (which is why you are using the 55 DPS number). You are making progress, but you are still wrong because that is not the only DPS output possible. It is the most constrained DPS number a Shaman can do.

[Troxx]

Please provide facts and data when you make your case. Evidence is important now don’cha’know.

If dps is past the diminishing returns why would I ever take 55 shaman dps over unlimited potg, snares, ports, evacs, free clicky regen, pretty good damage shield … oh and they can nuke at least as well as a shaman if not better. Is it the 18 dps pet that puts the shaman over the top? They can also heal to save the cleric and 2 enchanters from the emergency that will never happen. That’s a metric anus-load of utility we’re talking about here DSM!

You got your work cut out for you.

Make your case. Why take a shaman in this theoretical group instead of a druid?

… and go!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Please provide facts and data when you make your case. Evidence is important now don’cha’know.

If dps is past the diminishing returns why would I ever take 55 shaman dps over unlimited potg, snares, ports, evacs, free clicky regen, pretty good damage shield … oh and they can nuke at least as well as a shaman if not better. Is it the 18 dps pet that puts the shaman over the top? They can also heal to save the cleric and 2 enchanters from the emergency that will never happen.

You got your work cut out for you.

Make your case. Why take a shaman in this theoretical group instead of a druid?

… and go!

There are camps that an Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric/Druid group couldn't do. West Waste Dragons and Ixiblat Fer are two that come to mind.

The druid will offer benefits while leveling (similar to a Mage), but once you hit 60 the druid isn't doing much for the group. The Shaman has a higher ceiling on what it is enabling the group to do than either a Mage or a Druid.

If you prefer to do less camps and have free ports, that is a perfectly fine preference. But your group isn't increasing it's kills per hour or doable camps this way, so it will be weaker in the endgame.