Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Equivocate isn't the word you're looking for here: "To express one's self in terms which admit of different interpretations." You might be looking for "equivalent": "alike in significance and value; of the same import and meaning", although that's an adjective, and not a verb. If you need a verb, I would suggest "equate": "to represent as equal or equivalent".

I specifically used equivocate. Their argument revolves around describing characters in a vague manner, to remove the differences between character types.

But we are not here to discuss vocabulary.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

To Vexenu, I think you are getting too hung up on an extreme interpetation of the question posed in this thread. When looking at your luggage example, examine it a bit more critically. Almost everybody has keys and a wallet. You use your keys for your house/appartment and/or your car. You use your wallet for money. People also need to wear clothes in public, so you must have clothing on as well. You are most likely wearing shoes too.

What you are doing is taking the question of "What are the four most important items you would take while traveling?" to the most literal extreme. When you do this, we know that everybody is going to put Wallet, Keys, Clothes, and Shoes as their first four items. This is obviously against the spirit of the question, as it is really asking "What are the first four items you would put into your suitcase, assuming you have the common things everybody has?"

There is nothing wrong with saying: "I acknowledge that I have Shoes on, Clothes on, a Wallet in my pocket, and keys in my pocket. Excluding these obvious items, my top four picks for the suitcase would be A, B, C, and D." This ensures people understand you have already thought about these items, and are not excluding them from the suitcase for some reason. This also shows you may be including specific items because you know you have Clothes, Shoes, a Wallet, and Keys.

Mules and Pocket Characters are the same. I am pointing out the obvious that Mules and Pocket Characters exist. Their existance is informing my decision of which four classes I would pick.

Nobody has suggested putting a Druid/Wizard into the group to sell items in EC quickly via teleport due to everybody's banks/bags being full.This is because we already acknowledge that this group of four players can just make mules to store more stuff. This lessens the utility of a Druid/Wizard, but everybody agrees this is fair because they make mules anyway.

You can think of pocket characters in the same manner. It is a common practice to make pocket clerics for Ressurection, because it is fairly cheap and easy to make a level 49 Cleric for this purpose. This lessens the utility of a Cleric, but people agree this is fair because they make pocket clerics anyway.

It is not easy or cheap to make a level 60 Torpor Shaman with Torpor and raid gear for use as a pocket character, so it isn't comparable to suggest a level 49 pocket cleric is the same as a level 60 Torpor Shaman with raid gear.

[Penish]

i can see why you dont have a job

lol

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

i can see why you dont have a job

lol

Penish knows nothing about my personal life, he is just trolling. Please disregard his nonsense.

[Trexller]

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

i can see why you dont have a job

lol

p0sT tHe v1d30

[Troxx]

Oh lawdy lawdy

(Post the video!)

Toolbag McGee 400+ pages later still advocating for pocket clerics so he can shoehorn a shaman into a group that otherwise has no rez.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Oh lawdy lawdy

(Post the video!)

Toolbag McGee 400+ pages later still advocating for pocket clerics so he can shoehorn a shaman into a group that otherwise has no rez.

Here is Troxx trying to pretend pocket characters don't exist, so he can shoehorn in a Cleric/Mage instead of other classes that cannot be pocketed easily.

Necromancers have Res as well, in case you didn't know.

Troxx doesn't understand group dynamics well enough to know why an Enchanter/Shaman combo is good, based on his previous analysis. Nor does he understand how much DPS is typically needed in a group.

He also doesn't understand the word "redundancy". He is advocating for 2 enchanters, while complaining about spell overlap from a Shaman. He forgets that two Enchanters have more spell overlap than a Shaman/Enchanter.

When multiple people can cast a spell like slow, you can slow multiple mobs in camp simultaneously. You can also free up a spell slot on a caster for something else if that is not needed. A Shaman slowing allows an Enchanter to focus more on pet control and cc.

[Troxx]

I’m sorry you’re upset that shamans don’t fit into this ideal group. Unfortunately I don’t think you’re smart enough to understand the why behind this even if this thread were to live another 4,722 additional posts (half or more of which would still be yours).

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

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I’m sorry you’re upset that shamans don’t fit into this ideal group. Unfortunately I don’t think you’re smart enough to understand the why behind this even if this thread were to live another 4,722 additional posts (half or more of which would still be yours).

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

I am sorry Mages don't fit into this group, and can be pocketed as CoTH bots. Shamans certainly fit, as Enchanter/Shaman/Monk is already one of the strongest trios out there for content that doesn't need Warrior Discs.

Swap the Monk for a Necro to work within the thread and you have the same group. Fourth member is flexible, as there isn't any content I can think of that needs four players instead of three.

Remember when you also admitted you would take a Shaman/Enchanter combo over a Mage?

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

For 99% of group content and a 6 man group I would take a well geared warrior, cleric, shaman, rogue, monk and enchanter. Sub out monk for an epic bard if they are any good.

There isn't really a reason to make this six player group with a Shaman if you actually believed what you were saying about Shamans and their contribution to the group.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=114

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

Look guys, I’m an honest fella. I will readily admit to having engaged in trolling behavior with regards to DSM. You all have functioning brain cells … so I know that you all already know this. I also know that many of you also have done this. I’m not apologetic in the slightest sense of the word either.

The problem is you are an admitted troll, so we can't really take anything you say seriously. You have no problem saying whatever you think will troll someone, regardless of the truth.

[Troxx]

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

Remember when you also admitted you would take a Shaman/Enchanter combo over a Mage?

Warrior monk rogue ench shaman cleric is not restricted to the whole “4 person all caster group” concept.

It isn’t relevant to this thread at all.

Moving goalposts again?