Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[fortior]

Flipping from 'having a player [tank] maintain correct positioning is much easier' to 'the solution [to not having a cleric] is to get better and not die' in the same post, and wondering why people think you're a tedious debatebro playing for points.

[bcbrown]

Oh man, I massively respect that post, DSM. You put a lot of effort into that, I can tell. You deserve an equally thoughtful response. I'm sure you'll want to make some revisions in response to critiques - do you want to put that on the wiki somewhere? If nowhere else, maybe under your "talk" page? For example, here's mine: https://wiki.project1999.com/User_talk:Bcbrown

I'm going to give you a full thoughtful response later, but here's a couple of quick points of feedback:

On level 39, you mention CH efficiency against a monk, but it should be calculated against a typical enchanter charm pet - probably more like 2-4x the hp? You mention CH at 40% - my experience (City of Mist, goos, high 40s, tank with 2.5-3.5k hp), I start casting more like around 30%, with the aim of it landing around 20% hp +/- 5% - if it lands at >25%, it was too early, if it lands at <15%, it's playing dice with my tank's life.

Second, the regen line isn't very compelling in a caster group. Solo or duo/trio with a tank, it's the best, most efficient way to heal. Solo on a shaman, you obviously always want to keep regen up for canni. Solo on a druid, you can use regen to heal on the occasion you get slapped around while charming or root rotting, because sow/snare/gate means you're rarely at risk of dying from a damage spike. But when you're healing enchanters with hasted torched pets, they need to worry about damage spikes, so an immediate heal is better than a more-efficient, slower regen over time.

HP buffs while leveling - you're talking about Symbol but I don't think you're taking into account Daring/Valor/Resolution.

Dot clicky/dps: dot's don't help if you're chewing through mobs. Better comparison would be shaman/cleric nukes if there's spare mana.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Oh man, I massively respect that post, DSM. You put a lot of effort into that, I can tell. You deserve an equally thoughtful response. I'm sure you'll want to make some revisions in response to critiques - do you want to put that on the wiki somewhere? If nowhere else, maybe under your "talk" page? For example, here's mine: https://wiki.project1999.com/User_talk:Bcbrown

I'm going to give you a full thoughtful response later, but here's a couple of quick points of feedback:

On level 39, you mention CH efficiency against a monk, but it should be calculated against a typical enchanter charm pet - probably more like 2-4x the hp? You mention CH at 40% - my experience (City of Mist, goos, high 40s, tank with 2.5-3.5k hp), I start casting more like around 30%, with the aim of it landing around 20% hp +/- 5% - if it lands at >25%, it was too early, if it lands at <15%, it's playing dice with my tank's life.

Second, the regen line isn't very compelling in a caster group. Solo or duo/trio with a tank, it's the best, most efficient way to heal. Solo on a shaman, you obviously always want to keep regen up for canni. Solo on a druid, you can use regen to heal on the occasion you get slapped around while charming or root rotting, because sow/snare/gate means you're rarely at risk of dying from a damage spike. But when you're healing enchanters with hasted torched pets, they need to worry about damage spikes, so an immediate heal is better than a more-efficient, slower regen over time.

HP buffs while leveling - you're talking about Symbol but I don't think you're taking into account Daring/Valor/Resolution.

Dot clicky/dps: dot's don't help if you're chewing through mobs. Better comparison would be shaman/cleric nukes if there's spare mana.

Thanks. I might put it on the wiki later, that's not a bad idea.

The CH mana efficiency values are just rough values to show that CH isn't as efficient as people imagine in the lower levels, due to lower max HP's. It's going to vary based on how risky you are playing, what expansion you are in, and how good your equipment is. Classic is going to have lower HP mobs than Velious, for example. 40% health CH'es are often the norm. You can go lower, but honestly a death in the party or charmed mob is probably going to set you back more than the slight loss in efficiency. People cannot claim Shamans are vastly inferior healing-wise for a good majority of the 1-59 leveling process when looking at the rough numbers.

Regen is fine for healing in a Caster/Priest Group. If your group doesn't end up needing it, you can save mana of course. But then that shows you didn't need the more efficient heals from a Cleric anyway. The Shaman is doing just fine healing-wise already. Damage spikes aren't as bad in the lower levels, which is what we are discussing. Regen also helps more in lower levels. There's a reason why people put Fungi Tunic on every character they can, and that is +15 HP regen. +10 HP Regen is pretty nice for lower levels.

DoT DPS helps when you root/rot. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. It is a valid strategy. Nobody has proven otherwise. Trying to pretend it isn't a valid strategy is not helpful. It is the same thing with Pocket Characters. Pretending they don't exist is doing a disservice to the readers who don't care about people's personal opinions of them. Give people the options and let them decide how to play.

JBB works well as a DD spell. Clerics do not get a JBB equivalent to my knowledge. Mana DD spells from a Shaman work too if you prefer that strategy, but DoTs are more efficient, and root/rotting is valid.

Yes, I did forget the Daring/Valor/Resolution line. The HP gap widens by 130-250 HP depending on level, but this is still not enough of a gain to use it as a strong point against Shamans. Plenty of people start fights well under 100% HP, because they know they don't need all of their max HP to survive a generic XP mob encounter. This is especially true considering the other buffs Shamans provide that Clerics do not. I'd rather have less crit fails on lulls via CHA instead of a bit more max HP. Especially in higher levels when mobs will chew through 200 HP in 2 hits. If you are at a point where you are at 200 HP remaining, things have already gone sideways. Having a CHA buff also means the Enchanters can put on more +HP gear instead of +CHA gear, which will reduce the gap.

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

DSM really just dropped a 3,000 word effort post extolling the virtues of Shaman stat buffs, regen, DoTs, tanking and pet DPS in the context of a dual Enchanter charm group...

...thus proving my point that Shamans contribute basically nothing to said group from 1-59.

Thank you for conceding, DSM.

As you can see, Vexenu has been utterly crushed by my post, as he cannot rebut a single point. This is the real concession. I thank you for it. You have proven you don't understand the Shaman class.

Simply mimicking me just makes you look bad. But I appreciate you flatter me with mimicry!

[Vexenu]

DSM really just dropped a 3,000 word effort post extolling the virtues of Shaman stat buffs, regen, DoTs, tanking and pet DPS in the context of a dual Enchanter charm group...

...thus proving my point that Shamans contribute basically nothing to said group from 1-59.

Thank you for conceding, DSM.

[bcbrown]

I want to point out a couple forms of bias in your argument. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be be biased when arguing a position - I just want to take the time to emphasise that this is a subjective argument, not an objective scoring. I also want to underline that this is not the substantive argument in favor of including a cleric that you deserve, but just a few quick thoughts I wanted to jot down.

structural bias - the top-line points are all about shaman benefits, not mentioning any cleric unique abilities (as compared to shamans). No mention of stun, lull, atone, DA. This is fair for a subjective argument - but not for an objective assessment.

selective bias - level ranges provided are the ones where shamans are comparatively equal on heals. Here's an alternate perspective. From 24-29 clerics will have Greater Healing(290-300) while shamans will have Healing (100hp). Up through 51 shaman is limited to Greater Healing(270hp), while from 34 on clerics have Superior Healing (565-585) - that's double the healing per cast from 34 till 52.

redundancy bias - slows are redundant, but there's an argument about why that's still a point in favor for shamans. Stuns are redundant, but the benefits of that redundancy are dismissed.

healing metric bias - mana efficiency is not the only metric. Time efficiency matters as well.

To re-iterate, everything you wrote is perfectly reasonable as a subjective argument in favor of a position. But we've had a recurring side-discussion on whether this topic is objective or subjective and I thought it was worth noting some relevant thoughts.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I want to point out a couple forms of bias in your argument. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be be biased when arguing a position - I just want to take the time to emphasise that this is a subjective argument, not an objective scoring. I also want to underline that this is not the substantive argument in favor of including a cleric that you deserve, but just a few quick thoughts I wanted to jot down.

structural bias - the top-line points are all about shaman benefits, not mentioning any cleric unique abilities (as compared to shamans). No mention of stun, lull, atone, DA. This is fair for a subjective argument - but not for an objective assessment.

selective bias - level ranges provided are the ones where shamans are comparatively equal on heals. Here's an alternate perspective. From 24-29 clerics will have Greater Healing(290-300) while shamans will have Healing (100hp). Up through 51 shaman is limited to Greater Healing(270hp), while from 34 on clerics have Superior Healing (565-585) - that's double the healing per cast from 34 till 52.

redundancy bias - slows are redundant, but there's an argument about why that's still a point in favor for shamans. Stuns are redundant, but the benefits of that redundancy are dismissed.

healing metric bias - mana efficiency is not the only metric. Time efficiency matters as well.

To re-iterate, everything you wrote is perfectly reasonable as a subjective argument in favor of a position. But we've had a recurring side-discussion on whether this topic is objective or subjective and I thought it was worth noting some relevant thoughts.

You are incorrect about subjectivity. You cannot wave a magic wand and simply claim everything is subjective. Just like you cannot wave a magic wand and make people forget about pocket characters, root/rotting, or anything else that hurts your argument.

Your idea that everything is biased is also just an attempt to undermine what I have said, by repeating the word bias and hoping it sticks. If you want to claim everything is biased, you aren't exempt from that either.

In a game with inbalanced classes, fixed math, and fixes rules, there are objectively better and worse setups for this thread. Attempting to undermine facts and logic by claiming everything is subjective is not a valid form of debate.

My post specifically was about why Shamans are better. It is nonsense to claim that if an argument does not cover every possible scenario, it is not objective. This is just going back to your incorrect ideas about subjectivity. It is an underhanded attenmpt at undermining credibility, instead of going after the substance.

I am leaving it up to you Troxx, etc. to explain your position on Clerics. It is not my job to do your argument for you. I don't think people really care about level 24 healing efficiency to be honest. You need to name camps and scenarios where you think this will be significant enough to choose Cleric over Shaman if you think I missed something.

The only people arguing against spell redundancy are posters like Troxx. Having extra Slows, stuns, etc. is great. But you need to show why the extra cleric stun is significant enough to be a serious point in the debate. Thus far you have not.

If you want to talk about other facets of healing and give example camps where some heals are better than othere, please provide them.

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

1 throwaway line about pet CH, nothing about the DA/ae mez synergy of necro/clr, and of course pocketing. Still no reply on how pocketing a cleric works in ST but whatever. You can only come up with this stuff if you’ve never enc/clr’d

E: to explain, DSMs huge post doesn’t reveal any interest in collaboratively discussing the best 4 man group. He has a conclusion and is now repeatedly arguing for that conclusion. There’s no evenhandedness, there’s no honest pro/con list, etc.

As you can see, foritor cannot rebut any of my points either, and has thus conceded. He cannot explain why Clerics are better. You can't win a debate by saying "im disagree, therefore I win".

[fortior]

1 throwaway line about pet CH, nothing about the DA/ae mez synergy of necro/clr, and of course pocketing. Still no reply on how pocketing a cleric works in ST but whatever. You can only come up with this stuff if you’ve never enc/clr’d

E: to explain, DSMs huge post doesn’t reveal any interest in collaboratively discussing the best 4 man group. He has a conclusion and is now repeatedly arguing for that conclusion. There’s no evenhandedness, there’s no honest pro/con list, etc.

[fortior]

You don’t know enough about the game to assume ‘fixed rules’ (whatever that means). It took you guys like two hundred pages to find out about wizard’s alter plane: hate when I mentioned it, and so far your only response to ‘no rez lol’ has been bringing a cleric, but it doesn’t count because you said so. You think extremely highly of your game mastery and unjustly so

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You don’t know enough about the game to assume ‘fixed rules’ (whatever that means). It took you guys like two hundred pages to find out about wizard’s alter plane: hate when I mentioned it, and so far your only response to ‘no rez lol’ has been bringing a cleric, but it doesn’t count because you said so. You think extremely highly of your game mastery and unjustly so

Thus far I can explain my position, and you cannot. Simply claiming you are right is nonsense. Come back when you can rebut my points.

[fortior]

I reject your points. I categorically disagree with your posts about allowing pocketing, the value of pet ch, and the lack of cleric utility. I’m sure this will cost me points in debate class, but this isn’t a formal debate, and even if it were, you’re not adjudicating anything. Sit down. Play your shaman. Now for the people who actually do this content:

ST trash clear. Enc/clr is clear, do you go 2 encs for 2 newly createds? Necro for FD pull/safety rez? Shaman for malo? Keep in mind the ST key is not soulbound in era, you don’t want to be stranded