Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Crede]

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

Apparently you do, because you can't provide any evidence other than your opinion.

I am sorry, but you aren't getting any benefit from killing a mob 10 seconds faster on a 30 minute respawn. I'll take utility over useless DPS any day.

I’m not sure why you’re basing your “dps breakpoint” and heal threshold on basically the fungi King. This is such a trivial mob. A naked cleric and half decent monk can kill it. I would assume it’s because you haven’t really stretched the limits.

Try something actually challenging like sleepers or hate. Torpor tanking isn’t going to fly. And you’re going to want as much dps as you get. Dps always leads to more kills, more safety, and potentially more downtime for player fatigue.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I’m not sure why you’re basing your “dps breakpoint” and heal threshold on basically the fungi King. This is such a trivial mob. A naked cleric and half decent monk can kill it. I would assume it’s because you haven’t really stretched the limits.

Try something actually challenging like sleepers or hate. Torpor tanking isn’t going to fly. And you’re going to want as much dps as you get. Dps always leads to more kills, more safety, and potentially more downtime for player fatigue.

Name a mob then. Obviously one a group of 4 can do.

[Gloomlord]

But your utility as Shaman is useless, hence why extra DPS is better than nothing.

If a mob 10 seconds faster is pointless, then I'll grab a Druid for the utility that isn't redundant. You can't bring up "pocket class" or "Dial a Port" either, here. This is about 4 people trying to be the best they can possibly be.

Either way you slice it, you've lost the argument here. I call checkmate.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

But your utility as Shaman is useless, hence why extra DPS is better than nothing.

If a mob 10 seconds faster is pointless, then I'll grab a Druid for the utility that isn't redundant. You can't bring up "pocket class" or "Dial a Port" either, here. This is about 4 people trying to be the best they can possibly be.

Either way you slice it, you've lost the argument here. I call checkmate.

Just saying something is useless without evidence is useless. Unlike youself, I can tell you how much benefit you can get from the extra DPS, and it is not worth taking the Mage for. You are unable to explain why a Shaman is useless.

[Gloomlord]

The evidence is right before us.

Take one look at their spell book. It's redundant in a group with an Enchanter and Cleric.

What exactly are they bringing here that makes them more efficient than Mage in this composition? Nothing!

CHECK...MATE

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

The evidence is right before us.

Take one look at their spell book. It's redundant in a group with an Enchanter and Cleric.

What exactly are they bringing here that makes them more efficient than Mage in this composition? Nothing!

CHECK...MATE

2 Enchanters have the same spell book, and Clerics share Lull/Root/Stun with Enchanters. I cannot believe you think this argument makes you look good. You need to explain why the "redundancy" is a problem.

[bcbrown]

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

I apologize, you did read it correct.

I appreciate and accept the apology. I apologize for getting frustrated with you.

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

This is why the "redundancy" argument is silly, because you are NOT simply picking a second Enchanter for DPS. Having 2 copies of an Enchanters spellbook is more useful than a Mage's spellbook, unless you need CoTH.

Ironically, the same people who are arguing for redundancy (3x Enchanters) use that same argument to try and say Shamans are bad because of redundancy. It is nonsensical.

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

2 Enchanters have the same spell book, and Clerics share Lull/Root/Stun with Enchanters. I cannot believe you think this argument makes you look good. You need to explain why the "redundancy" is a problem.

If you find an argument (subscribed to by most other participants in this thread) nonsensical, I would posit that either A: it's not worth interacting with those participants as they are equally nonsensical as the argument; or B: your understanding of the argument differs materially from the understanding of the other participants, who are sensible. Are you interested in the possibility of B? Are you willing to extend the debate principle of charity to me, and listen to what I say without accusing me of bad faith or not understanding what you say?

Are you willing to accept the following postulates as precondition for this discussion between the two of us?
* No "pocket characters" are to be included. The group of four casters must be completly self-sufficient, except from one port into their destination from Dial-A-Port. No pocket rez, no pocket POTG, no pocket buffs.
* The original question includes no real context. Your perspective is colored by a focus on named camps where everyone is 60 with ~more or less~ epic and full gear. My perspective is colored by a focus on leveling 1-50 untwinked, especially random adventuring through an entire dungeon, instead of camping a single named mob. Both of these perspectives are subjective.
* The group is to stay together and not to split their focus. I understand and accept your argument that a shaman can add DPS by root rotting away from or ahead of the rest of the group. I'm glad you can find groups that let you play the way you like to play, but I find the scenario abhorrent, and I do not wish to consider it any further.
* Can we agree that some spells can be almost completely redundant (two shamans can't both cast Bane Of Nife on the same mob), and some spells can be almost completely non-redundant (two wizards casting the same nuke on a mob that's not insta-killed by the first one that lands)?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I appreciate and accept the apology. I apologize for getting frustrated with you.

No worries!

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

If you find an argument (subscribed to by most other participants in this thread) nonsensical, I would posit that either A: it's not worth interacting with those participants as they are equally nonsensical as the argument; or B: your understanding of the argument differs materially from the understanding of the other participants, who are sensible. Are you interested in the possibility of B? Are you willing to extend the debate principle of charity to me, and listen to what I say without accusing me of bad faith or not understanding what you say?

I am perfectly willing admit I am wrong, and have done so in the past. The issue is people are making claims without evidence. When I provide evidence, it is dismissed in favor of someone saying "I am right, and you are wrong". There is no logical reason to take that kind of argument over an argument with evidence. I have played this game for many years. I have a good understanding of it. Do I know everything? Of course not. But I have played a 60 Shaman and a 60 Cleric. I know what they are capable of.

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

Are you willing to accept the following postulates as precondition for this discussion between the two of us?
* No "pocket characters" are to be included. The group of four casters must be completly self-sufficient, except from one port into their destination from Dial-A-Port. No pocket rez, no pocket POTG, no pocket buffs.
* The original question includes no real context. Your perspective is colored by a focus on named camps where everyone is 60 with ~more or less~ epic and full gear. My perspective is colored by a focus on leveling 1-50 untwinked, especially random adventuring through an entire dungeon, instead of camping a single named mob. Both of these perspectives are subjective.
* The group is to stay together and not to split their focus. I understand and accept your argument that a shaman can add DPS by root rotting away from or ahead of the rest of the group. I'm glad you can find groups that let you play the way you like to play, but I find the scenario abhorrent, and I do not wish to consider it any further.
* Can we agree that some spells can be almost completely redundant (two shamans can't both cast Bane Of Nife on the same mob), and some spells can be almost completely non-redundant (two wizards casting the same nuke on a mob that's not insta-killed by the first one that lands)?

I am not willing to accept these terms.

1. OP did not specify any preconditions, so they are moot.

2. These preconditions are designed to restrict the conversation to try and make certain classes favorable for specific scenarios. This creates a situation where you inevitably compare apples to oranges. Someone will fervently try to win the argument by creating a scenario where their favorite class is the best, and then use that to claim another class can never be superior. The reality is you level characters to get to level 60. You need to think about what a level 60 character is doing. A conversation about "efficient groups" is not very useful in the lower levels. The content is so easy you can use just about any 4 man group, other than perhaps all rogues.

3. It is a fact that on a 10+ year old server, many people have druid/cleric alts, and they are also easy to create if a player wishes. Trying to say you cannot bring a pocket Cleric or Druid is nonsensical.

4. There is no reason to require the group to stay together. Your personal opinion on what a group should do is not relevant to the objective truth of what a specific group composition is capable of. If you choose not to utilize your group's capabilities, that is not the fault of the class or composition.

5. Some spells cannot be used simultaneously on the same mob, as they will simply replace one another. We agree on this. But you CAN cast the same spell on two different mobs at the same time. Having 2 people casting slow on two mobs at once can potentially save the group from wiping, as a simple example. This is why having 2 Enchanters isn't a bad thing. They can overlap stuns, mez multiple targets at the same time, slow multiple targets at the same time, etc. This is generally an emergency situation, but emergencies are when your spells really matter. If you are just mindlessly churning through easy mobs, you aren't really using your class's full strength anyway.

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

Torpor is redundant. We have Complete Heal. Mage also brings their own version of Malo. A 2nd Enchanter is not redundant because they bring a 2nd charm. Enchanter and Cleric are the cornerstone of this group, so it's basically more DPS at that point. In which case, Enchanters bring some of the best DPS in the game, and so the 2nd Enchanter is not redundant.

What does Shaman bring? Unneeded healing and crappy damage by comparison.

Your last sentence proclaiming me to be a troll is just you projecting yourself to me when it becomes clear you've lost.

You bring the Shaman instead of the Cleric because CH isn't really necessary for the content this group will be doing. Shaman Malo is better, and Mage DPS isn't helping.

[Gloomlord]

You truly are impermeable to reason.

Yes, two enchanters share the same spell book. Yes, clerics have some overlapping spells. Guess what those two classes bring? Excellent DPS, the best CC and the best healing in the game.

A shaman is completely irrelevant here for a 4th member, for DPS, Utility and Healing.

How many times do we need to say this? Of course you're going to say "how can you prove it" when we proved it to you time and time again. But it doesn't matter, because we've already won the argument here and are only trying to make you admit the truth in vain.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You truly are impermeable to reason.

Yes, two enchanters share the same spell book. Yes, clerics have some overlapping spells. Guess what those two classes bring? Excellent DPS, the best CC and the best healing in the game.

A shaman is completely irrelevant here for a 4th member, for DPS, Utility and Healing.

How many times do we need to say this? Of course you're going to say "how can you prove it" when we proved it to you time and time again. But it doesn't matter, because we've already won the argument here and are only trying to make you admit the truth in vain.

Ah, so now redundancy isn't a bad thing?

Shamans bring excellent damage mitigation (which is why they are such good soloers) and can alleviate an Enchanter's mana problems by simply taking over some of their duties. With cannibalize their mana will last longer, which means they can do more. In an emergency situation, a Shaman is much tankier than a Cleric, and can help the group when you are fighting harder mobs, such as stun immune mobs. A Shaman can still output decent DPS without breaking a sweat to help stay above the DPS threshold, while a cleric is simply meditating. Malo reduces how many charm breaks there are too.

A group of 3-4 players without a Warrior is not fighting anything that needs CH. You aren't CH chaining a Warrior who is discing. With Slow + Torpor, you don't need to heal your pet at all, and the pet is doing more DPS because it doesn't need to tank.

You would know this if you actually had a point to make. Saying Shamans are "useless" is just a baseless opinion. I can still tell you how many seconds a Mage will save with 2x Enchanters DPSing, and it isn't relevant.