Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I did link a post of you saying exactly that above.

Remember that one?
Better than mage cuz shm can solo 4 - 5 while everyone else groups.

Many many posts exactly like this one.
Anywho. Id defo take a wiz or druid or virtually any other class if you was the shm who turned up.

Please show where my quote says "the usefulness of a shm over virtually any other class is the ability to solo off to the side while everyone else plays together".

I don't see it anywhere here:

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

I'd still swap the cleric for a Shaman in this kind of group. You get more classes that can split off and solo when there are no priority targets up. Cleric has to stay stuck to the Ench or Necro. You can always use a pocket cleric for the rare fight that might need to CH the pet.

You are taking what I said out of context and changing the wording (which changes the meaning) to troll me, as usual. I said "in this kind of group", because the context of that post is responding to Fortior's specific discussion about a Wizard focused group that can teleport around and split up to kill more targets. The whole idea of Fortior's Wizard group is you have multiple people soloing/duoing to kill more targets. I never made the split group suggestion. I am just replying to Fortior's discussion about a Wizard focused group that splits up to kill more targets.

The problem is you don't read threads, and make up lies about what other people say because you don't understand what is being discussed.

[Duik]

Telling a necro not to tap cuz a shm can heal them virtually for free while nec does uva stuff like dot and dd. ie better than a nec and make them be just a dotting shm by limiting them according to your requirements. Shm can canni and torp mana back. Just sit there and be a good necro (according to my specs. Lolocaust Specs...)

Using shm to tank cuz they better. In this instance cuz can slow and torp. Why? Positioning of back stabbing charm pets. Also it fits your needs to control party duty assignments to make shm indispensable.

Better than clr cuz all clr can do is CH and be glued to chanter. Why? Chanter pet breaks. Come on, chanters solo stuff all the time and breaks must occur then. Im sure many have a charm break toolbox.

Better than dru cuz well admittedly they are in this instance. Unless of course you need burns, potg (since we all 60), ports, DS, since we also dotting, and snare.

Better than wiz cuz no way to reclaim mana like a shm can. No staying power man! No matter stuns interrupt caster mobs. Admittedly a wiz is limited in this scenario but I'd still take one if you are the shm in question.

You have said all these things and unlike you i couldnt give too fucks about tracking down and linking all of them. These threads become massive when you become involved and id rather mow the grass in the cow paddock across the road from me than sort through all your chaff.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Telling a necro not to tap cuz a shm can heal them virtually for free while nec does uva stuff like dot and dd. ie better than a nec and make them be just a dotting shm by limiting them according to your requirements. Shm can canni and torp mana back. Just sit there and be a good necro (according to my specs. Lolocaust Specs...)

Using shm to tank cuz they better. In this instance cuz can slow and torp. Why? Positioning of back stabbing charm pets. Also it fits your needs to control party duty assignments to make shm indispensable.

Better than clr cuz all clr can do is CH and be glued to chanter. Why? Chanter pet breaks. Come on, chanters solo stuff all the time and breaks must occur then. Im sure many have a charm break toolbox.

Better than dru cuz well admittedly they are in this instance. Unless of course you need burns, potg (since we all 60), ports, DS, since we also dotting, and snare.

Better than wiz cuz no way to reclaim mana like a shm can. No staying power man! No matter stuns interrupt caster mobs. Admittedly a wiz is limited in this scenario but I'd still take one if you are the shm in question.

You have said all these things and unlike you i couldnt give too fucks about tracking down and linking all of them. These threads become massive when you become involved and id rather mow the grass in the cow paddock across the road from me than sort through all your chaff.

I still don't see "the usefulness of a shm over virtually any other class is the ability to solo off to the side while everyone else plays together" anywhere in your post. Thank you for admitting you can't find it.

I don't understand why you think healing a Necromancer so they can cast more spells than just lifetaps is a limit of some kind.

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

You guys looking at this?

Yes, we are looking at this:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=241

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

You're the only one I'm "harassing", you manipulative sociopath.

You've admitted to being a troll, and over 80% of your posts are factually just insults and trolling.

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

Who do you think is MORE disruptive in this forum?

Factual trolls like yourself are disruptive, which is why your behavior is against the forum rules.

You can redeem yourself if you choose to stop posting trolls and insults. Post on topic from now on instead of what you normally post over 80% of the time.

[Duik]

Well DSM is the Distributor of Serviette Math so im sure he has calculated (to 17 decimal places) the accuracy of his conclusion.
So it must be true.
It's a trollocaust.

[Toxigen]

almost to five hundo

[beboprocksteady]

This is so sad.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

This is so sad.

Agreed. This thread shows there are a number of trolls on this forum who attack anyone who disagree with them. It's a good guide for people to find who the trolls are, but I wish they would just stop trolling.

[Troxx]

He was referring to you I’d wager.

35.5 more pages to go!

[plzrelax]

Can bards fit into this conversation?

[cyxthryth]

For anyone looking for a TL;DR of pages 1 - 464, here is a recap/summary:

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.