Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[bcbrown]

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

They are also wrong to equivocate Main/Alt Characters to Pocket Characters, as explained here https://project1999.com/forums/showp...postcount=4706

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".

[Vexenu]

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

You just need to read this post:

https://project1999.com/forums/showp...postcount=4706

It rebuts your argument completely. We do no say this group isn't allowed mules to store their items lol. The same thing applies to pocket characters, which are different from main/alternate characters.

A mule is fundamentally different than an alt or pocket, as the mule essentially functions only an extension of the player's bank, and not as a playable character. Indeed, this is so much the case that the race and class of a mule is almost completely irrelevant (excepting those who specifically roll level 5 Bard mules to be able to Selos and move while encumbered).

If I asked you, "DSM, if you could only pack four things in your suitcase, what would they be?" I would not expect you to reply with, "I would pack A, B, C and D in my suitcase, but then I would also carry X, Y and Z in my pockets," as doing so completely evades the purpose of the question, which is to spur debate over the value of various options given the artificially imposed restraints. Similarly, when we have a thread about the best four person group, it is implied within the framework of the question itself that we limit our replies to four classes.

By insisting that your response be allowed to include pocket characters and alts, you are flatly disregarding the spirit of the question at hand, are disrespecting the OP and all the other posters in the thread, as well as the forum itself. It is the equivalent of attending an art exhibition, projectile vomiting all over a blank canvas and proudly declaring to the stunned and disgusted crowd that, "Look everyone, I can make art too!"

[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]

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

A mule is fundamentally different than an alt or pocket, as the mule essentially functions only an extension of the player's bank, and not as a playable character. Indeed, this is so much the case that the race and class of a mule is almost completely irrelevant (excepting those who specifically roll level 5 Bard mules to be able to Selos and move while encumbered).

If I asked you, "DSM, if you could only pack four things in your suitcase, what would they be?" I would not expect you to reply with, "I would pack A, B, C and D in my suitcase, but then I would also carry X, Y and Z in my pockets," as doing so completely evades the purpose of the question, which is to spur debate over the value of various options given the artificially imposed restraints. Similarly, when we have a thread about the best four person group, it is implied within the framework of the question itself that we limit our replies to four classes.

By insisting that your response be allowed to include pocket characters and alts, you are flatly disregarding the spirit of the question at hand, are disrespecting the OP and all the other posters in the thread, as well as the forum itself. It is the equivalent of attending an art exhibition, projectile vomiting all over a blank canvas and proudly declaring to the stunned and disgusted crowd that, "Look everyone, I can make art too!"

I am glad to see you agree that different character types exist, as you agree Mules are different from Main/Alt Characters.

I haven't said "You can bring your level 60 raid geared Warrior to help this group" anywhere in this thread, so I am not sure why you keep assuming that. It sounds like you don't understand the difference between a pocket character and an alt/main character. You need to read my post more carefully, so you can understand what a pocket character is:

https://project1999.com/forums/showp...postcount=4706

No, I am not disrespecting this thread/forum by talking about pocket characters, which are a common strategy in P99. OP did not exclude them, and you cannot make this exclusion for OP.

Finally, I am not sure how I can evade the question of "what are you going to pack in your suitcase?" by telling you exactly what I am packing lol. Telling someone "This is what's in my suitcase, and I also put my Wallet in my pockets for easy access", is not an evasion. You are answering the question and providing additonal information.

[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.

[Troxx]

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

Cleric and ench duo are already wickedly OP. Add a second ench for 2nd pet and backup cc and it’s that much easier. So yeah 3/4 are spoken for.

Remaining options:

-druid (lol no)

-wizard (lol even more no)

-shaman: gives you redundant slows you don’t need, heals you won’t need, buffs you won’t need, a pet that sucks and malo (value added). Dots will not add much as with 2 ench pets nothing is alive long. Malo is good but shamans don’t have a monopoly on this line. Shaman isn’t a terrible choice, but you’re bringing along a class that can’t contribute as much as other options

-mage: strong pet for additional dps and backup tanking (value added), malo (value added), mod rods (value added), coth (value added for both mobility and aggro wipe mechanics), pet haste masks (value added as pets are literally all your dps) … and when all else is covered and nothing else needed, nifty nuke burn potential.

-necro: decent pet choices for additional dps and backup tanking (value added), twitches (value added), additional cc (value added root and screaming), backup heals (probably not needed but value added), FD (value added and opens up some content), snare (meh but value added?), backup rez (value added) … and when all else is covered they can burn extra mana nuking stuff down or just twitching.


So yeah in this theoretical best of the best it’s either
-clr/ench/ench/mage if you don’t need a FD split
-clr/ench/ench/nec if FD split would be useful or at a tougher camp that may benefit from the expanded necro tool kit (but you lose malo)

Shaman are a top notch class but compared to mage or necro … relative dead weight only contributing redundant bs you don’t really need. A competent cleric can easily manage 2 charming enchanters cross covering cc … and healing a charm pet is so laughably easy you don’t need slow … and when you do enchanters can do that too last I checked.


I fully expect a literal tidal wave of dissenting responses from DSM but I call em like I see em.

I stand by my first post from page 3.