Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Thanks for the data Kitch867! It's much better than the ceaseless trolling of the other posters.

Nobody has argued that level makes no difference when fighting mobs. I know you are not suggesting that, but this stuff gets lost in the trolling. I know people think I argued that, since I simply asked for some data lol (big sin for some reason here). The post history is there for anybody who thinks this is wrong.

People just got angry when I ask them to provide data, which is the usual problem in this thread. Their claim was a charmed pet is going to massively out-DPS a Warrior, and that my data was simply wrong because the mob I was fighting was lower level.

However, I have shown data where I can maintain higher DPS than a charmed mob on a mob of equal level to my Warrior in the 1-30 range. Nobody is arguing this is true at higher levels, even though people will probably try to claim that. But again, the post history is clear.

Everquest mobs are balanced to be much easier in the low levels (1-39). Level difference at low levels makes less of a difference because mob stats are scaled down too. This is why in the lower levels you can actually solo yellow or even red mobs sometimes, but you can no longer do that in the higher levels.

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

Unanimous experience of many people > faulty and biased data from 1 person.

Sorry to break the bad news

More like "angry trolls who can't admit they are wrong, regardless of what 'experience' they have" < hard data.

Sorry you don't got data. Hope this helps.

[cyxthryth]

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

Thanks for the data Kitch867! It's much better than the ceaseless trolling of the other posters.

Why don't you provide the relevant/requested data instead of ceaselessly and baselessly continuing to label others trolls? Reminder: others are not trolls simply because you think that they are or because you state that they are hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

I simply asked for some data lol (big sin for some reason here)

I have provided you with plenty factual data points, you simply continue to remain in your corner silently conceding rather than attempt to counter them hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I also simply asked you for data in the form of responses to my factual statements & answers to my simple questions (big sin for some reason here hehe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]) but you continue to remain in your corner silently conceding rather than provide hard data (or any reply at all hehe) as is clearly visible in the post history. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

The post history is there for anybody who thinks this is wrong.

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

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

People just got angry when I ask them to provide data, which is the usual problem in this thread.

What evidence do you have to support this claim? You do not know how other posters feel, regardless of what their posts may cause you to think you know. You can post whatever you want and feel however you want about it, it will not change this fact.

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

Their claim was a charmed pet is going to massively out-DPS a Warrior, and that my data was simply wrong because the mob I was fighting was lower level.

What they ACTUALLY claimed is visible in this thread's post history and is viewable by all hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

I have shown data

All I can do is re-state the facts in continued effort to attempt to continue the discussion(s) in a civil manner. The ball is in DSM's court.

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

as the data shows.

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

You called me "silly" when you were backed into a corner by my replies to you on the below thread too, and you stopped replying (like a little bitch): https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...401629&page=37.

How's it going in that corner you've been backed into?

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

I am maintaining civility in this discussion, and my position is founded on hard evidence. The only insults I throw are thrown in defense.

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

No, you have not maintained civility in this discussion.

I have maintained civility in my posts to you - in which I have ONLY stated facts and asked questions - and despite my civility you have (repeatedly) called me a troll, called me silly, accused me of doing/posting things I have not done/posted, and meanwhile have continued to ignore my simple questions and avoided responding to the many facts I've stated. I present both of our posts - from this thread and elsewhere - as evidence of my civility, and you have provided no counterevidence despite me requesting you provide it (multiple times).

Why do you opt out of partaking in a civil discussion with me, and meanwhile claim that you are maintaining civility in this discussion (yet choose to continue to call me names for [seemingly] no reason)?


Why do you feel the need to "defend yourself" from any of the facts I have stated or questions I have asked?

[Kich867]

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

I know people think I argued that, since I simply asked for some data lol (big sin for some reason here). The post history is there for anybody who thinks this is wrong.

I was addressing this:

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist

If you think a Warrior at level 24 is going to lose a large chunk of DPS by fighting a level 22 mob, just show the parse. I can tell you they won't [...]

In response to your initial parse against a mob ~8 levels lower than you.

My point is that you do, even at that level, lose a pretty noticeable amount of DPS. Maybe not if you're as geared as your character is, perhaps having enough Strength offsets it, but I don't think a single parse demonstrates that well enough.

The difference between being 3, 4, or 5 levels above a mob is pretty substantial. Being consistently 5 levels above this mob my average TTK was ~70s, being somewhere between 3-5 levels above this mob my average TTK was ~85s, and if I were to filter it to the ones I can confirm are 3 levels below me the TTK is much closer to ~100s.

The amount of times I miss a mob 3 levels below me compared to a mob 5 levels below me is significantly higher when it's 3 levels below me. And the amount of times I hit is significantly higher, indicating that I'm hitting for far less on average against these mobs because I'm not high rolling them as often.

I think it's misleading to suggest that you don't lose much DPS fighting things only a few levels below you, especially since you can have some seriously swingy fights--some of my parses involve lucky strings of crits that are counterbalanced by unlucky fights where I miss a lot over the course of 100 or so parses. In your own parse you did substantially more DPS against a higher level enemy than you did against a low level enemy, which to me would suggest thats an outlier.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Kich867 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I was addressing this:



In response to your initial parse against a mob ~8 levels lower than you.

My point is that you do, even at that level, lose a pretty noticeable amount of DPS. Maybe not if you're as geared as your character is, perhaps having enough Strength offsets it, but I don't think a single parse demonstrates that well enough.

The difference between being 3, 4, or 5 levels above a mob is pretty substantial. Being consistently 5 levels above this mob my average TTK was ~70s, being somewhere between 3-5 levels above this mob my average TTK was ~85s, and if I were to filter it to the ones I can confirm are 3 levels below me the TTK is much closer to ~100s.

The amount of times I miss a mob 3 levels below me compared to a mob 5 levels below me is significantly higher when it's 3 levels below me. And the amount of times I hit is significantly higher, indicating that I'm hitting for far less on average against these mobs because I'm not high rolling them as often.

I think it's misleading to suggest that you don't lose much DPS fighting things only a few levels below you, especially since you can have some seriously swingy fights--some of my parses involve lucky strings of crits that are counterbalanced by unlucky fights where I miss a lot over the course of 100 or so parses. In your own parse you did substantially more DPS against a higher level enemy than you did against a low level enemy, which to me would suggest thats an outlier.

I have shown that I didn't lose a large amount of DPS, and not enough to be below the charmed pet, which was the point. Even if the average shakes out to something closer to 19 DPS, that doesn't mean the charmed pet has some sort of heavy advantage.

I 100% agree more data would be better to get the true averages, but the same argument can be made for the pet DPS. It will have highs and lows too.

I am just giving out some quick data that I acquired to disprove obviously silly claims like a low level charmed pet is going to "massively" out-DPS a low level Warrior. If the warrior has low gear like yourself, this may be true. But the reality is most people can afford some minor twink gear (2k is a small sum of money), so I think it is not reasonable to make this assumption unless the thread is specifically talking about making a "self-found only" group.

The reality is I have given out way more data than all of the opposition combined, and it's never enough. They will not believe hours of parse data or a single parse hehe. It's much easier to just say "I am right because other people agree with me".

[cyxthryth]

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

I have shown that I didn't lose a large amount of DPS,

You "have shown" that you are disingenuous about what normal people (read: the rest of us; everybody except for you) would consider to be a "large amount". I submit your posts in this thread, particularly (but not limited to) regarding the DPS difference between Shaman and Mage as my evidence hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

The reality is I have given out way more data than all of the opposition combined, and it's never enough. They will not believe hours of parse data or a single parse hehe. .

The reality is that you thinking something does not make it a fact, and your thoughts do not and can not refute or change the actual/true facts hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] You can type whatever you wish and feel however you feel, it is not going to change this.

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

It's much easier to just say "I am right because other people agree with me"

You have provided no evidence that anybody has made that claim. What has ACTUALLY been claimed is visible in this thread's post history, viewable by all.

All I can do is re-state the facts in continued effort to attempt to continue the discussion(s) in a civil manner. The ball is in DSM's court.

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

as the data shows

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

You called me "silly" when you were backed into a corner by my replies to you on the below thread too, and you stopped replying (like a little bitch): https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...401629&page=37.

How's it going in that corner you've been backed into?

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

I am maintaining civility in this discussion, and my position is founded on hard evidence. The only insults I throw are thrown in defense.

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

No, you have not maintained civility in this discussion.

I have maintained civility in my posts to you - in which I have ONLY stated facts and asked questions - and despite my civility you have (repeatedly) called me a troll, called me silly, accused me of doing/posting things I have not done/posted, and meanwhile have continued to ignore my simple questions and avoided responding to the many facts I've stated. I present both of our posts - from this thread and elsewhere - as evidence of my civility, and you have provided no counterevidence despite me requesting you provide it (multiple times).

Why do you opt out of partaking in a civil discussion with me, and meanwhile claim that you are maintaining civility in this discussion (yet choose to continue to call me names for [seemingly] no reason)?


Why do you feel the need to "defend yourself" from any of the facts I have stated or questions I have asked?