Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Gloomlord]

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

I agree with you that Mages do better single target DPS when compared to a Shaman.

I simply disagree that roughly 50 extra single target DPS over a Shaman is necessary in a four man group already doing 200+ DPS with 2 Enchanters.

The Shaman's utility far outweighs DPS that has already hit significant diminishing returns, and the group can have the Shaman do more DPS via root rotting in XP groups if they care. As other people have mentioned (and I agree), that is typically overkill because players intuitively understand diminishing returns on DPS. It is the same reason why you don't normally see 6 player XP groups, because the additional DPS of 2-3 more players simply doesn't make up for the XP loss each player is getting.

The thing is: most would prefer a bit of extra DPS on a single target in a charm group than redundant utility and utterly worthless root rotting that you only brought up to childishly spite mage.

If I wanted utility here in this group, I'd take a Necromancer or a Druid.

We've already covered this over multiple pages last year.

[Toxigen]

Awww yeah we're definitely hitting 400 boys.

[Gloomlord]

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

Or you could have a Shaman, and the Enchanter isn't slowing at all[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Then why can't the other enchanter take over? You're telling me two enchanters can't make a decision on how to split their mana on which tasks?

Think, DSM, think!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

The thing is: most would prefer a bit of extra DPS on a single target in a charm group than redundant utility and utterly worthless root rotting that you only brought up to childishly spite mage.

If I wanted utility here in this group, I'd take a Necromancer or a Druid.

We've already covered this over multiple pages last year.

I didn't do anything to "spite Mages". That is a fabrication on your part. It is not my fault Mages are not very strong on P99, nor did I advocate to nerf them. This is the inherit problem with a time locked box, some classes get screwed more than others.

I am simply pointing out that Mage DPS is redundant in a group with high DPS, and a Shaman can increase their DPS in XP groups if necessary.

Shaman/Enchanter/Necro/Whatever is a great four man group, so I agree bringing a Necromancer is a good option, and you could even do Shaman/Enchanter/Necro/Druid. With the Shaman, Enchanter, and Necro pets the group is hitting close to 200 DPS, and you can easily get over that with Shaman/Necro/Druid spells.

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

Then why can't the other enchanter take over? You're telling me two enchanters can't make a decision on how to split their mana on which tasks?

Think, DSM, think!

Both Enchanters are still using a lot of mana on CCing and Charming. You aren't going to have only one Enchanter charming. If your Enchanters are at FM, I am not sure why you think the group is doing content challenging enough to need Cleric heals to begin with.

The only lack of thinking here is assuming you need maximum efficiency heals, while also claiming the Enchanters are never going to have mana problems.

[Vivitron]

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

I honestly can't think of a lot of content that specifically needs 3-4 players, and couldn't be done with a duo, or a solo player with all the expensive clickies.

That's an interesting question itself. Maybe Sleepers Tomb trash* clear, Chardok Royals / Cleric Epic (I'm not really sure on minimum for Chardok King, Ixiblat, and Ragefire), maybe some of the non Ayilish 6 necks (but why?).

As you've suggested before, for stuff that really requires more than 2 it is often nicer to just bring everyone than to try to do it with a minimal force. But it's still interesting to try to list. I don't mind 3-4 at some duoable camps though, can make it more stable.

* I managed to duo one of these but my method wouldn't have been good enough for a clear.

[Toxigen]

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

That's an interesting question itself. Maybe Sleepers Tomb trash* clear, Chardok Royals / Cleric Epic (I'm not really sure on minimum for Chardok King, Ixiblat, and Ragefire), maybe some of the non Ayilish 6 necks (but why?).

As you've suggested before, for stuff that really requires more than 2 it is often nicer to just bring everyone than to try to do it with a minimal force. But it's still interesting to try to list. I don't mind 3-4 at some duoable camps though, can make it more stable.

* I managed to duo one of these but my method wouldn't have been good enough for a clear.

Aye. GWurms and Tola/Prot/Juggs are a couple that come to mind. Certainly GWurms need 4 ish for consistency and Juggs are more chill with 3.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

That's an interesting question itself. Maybe Sleepers Tomb trash* clear, Chardok Royals / Cleric Epic (I'm not really sure on minimum for Chardok King, Ixiblat, and Ragefire), maybe some of the non Ayilish 6 necks (but why?).

As you've suggested before, for stuff that really requires more than 2 it is often nicer to just bring everyone than to try to do it with a minimal force. But it's still interesting to try to list. I don't mind 3-4 at some duoable camps though, can make it more stable.

* I managed to duo one of these but my method wouldn't have been good enough for a clear.

Yeah I would be curious to get other people's opinions on some of these camps that are kind of in the grey area. Usually for something like Ixiblat or Ragefire a full group is safer, so you don't waste the turn-in. But that doesn't mean there aren't people out there doing it with less people.

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

Aye. GWurms and Tola/Prot/Juggs are a couple that come to mind. Certainly GWurms need 4 ish for consistency and Juggs are more chill with 3.

Yeah GWurms might be tough with only 4 people, but probably doable. I guess the question is would a 4 man GWurms group be that much more efficient than Juggs for getting spells? I do wonder that sometimes. If it isn't a group of 4 would probably only consider GWurms if Juggs were already taken.

[fortior]

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

I think you can argue that druids, bards and necromancers are more efficient at soloing, which they indeed are, but shamans are the ones who can take on the higher end mobs which summon etc.

Shamans have a gimmick of very slowly killing high end summoning mobs. They do so at a snail's pace and are worse at it than enchanters. On every other aspect of soloing they are worse than other classes who actually receive transformative benefits from gear.

I guess you'd roll a Shaman if you want to perpetually be at best in second place, with a toolset that never changes from the moment you mem Torpor.

[Vivitron]

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

The biggest issue with Everquest is 30 minute spawn timers cause DPS to fall off considerably after a certain point.

I'll also complain here about the placeholder-spawn mechanic. If you had to clear a whole area to get a good chance at a named spawn I think farming would be more social.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I'll also complain here about the placeholder-spawn mechanic. If you had to clear a whole area to get a good chance at a named spawn I think farming would be more social.

That would be an interesting mechanic. More dead mobs in an area = higher spawn chance.