Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

How about when all of them know a lot about the subject and all agree you have no idea what you're talking about?

The data so far still proves all of the opposition wrong. I am sorry data trumps "experience".

You have no evidence to back up your claims, or evidence to counter mine. It would be easy to prove me wrong if your claims are correct, but you would rather spend all your time trolling.

[cyxthryth]

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

The data so far still proves all of the opposition wrong. I am sorry data trumps "experience".

You have claimed I am a troll and you have provided zero evidence (despite multiple direct requests that you provide such evidence). I submit this entire thread & both of our posts in it as evidence. Again, you have provided no counterevidence.

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

You have no evidence to back up your claims, or evidence to counter mine.

Incorrect. The evidence is visible to all in this thread that I have (multiple times) provided this entire thread and all posts in it as my direct, indisputable evidence. You have not responded to the factual statements I have made, nor have you answered the simple questions I have posed to you hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] These are facts, they remain facts independent of what you type or how you feel.

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

It would be easy to prove me wrong if your claims are correct

Correct, and this has been done multiple times and you remain in your corner silently conceding 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.]

but you would rather spend all your time trolling.

Again, you have claimed I am a troll and you have provided zero evidence (despite multiple direct requests that you provide such evidence). I submit this entire thread & both of our posts in it as evidence. Again, you have provided no counterevidence.


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]

For fun, from the earlier conversation about how much levels matter, I happen to still have my logs from when I was soloing on my warrior, I wrote a simple parser to pull and summarize the data for all of my Chasm Crawler kills from levels 16-19.

During this time I exclusively killed blue ones. The number is what level I was, my hits aren't how hard I hit, just how many times I hit on average in these fights.

Weapons were: Bullsmasher and Longsword (from a vendor, just the weapon called "Longsword". The TTK listed here is in seconds for easier reading but I didn't convert it later on.

{
  "16": {
    "averageMyHits": 34.54,
    "averageMyMisses": 12.27,
    "averageMyDps": 3.89,
    "averageTheirHits": 14.18,
    "averageTheirDps": 1.51,
    "averageTtk": 85.59,
    "count": 22
  },
  "17": {
    "averageMyHits": 35.91,
    "averageMyMisses": 11.97,
    "averageMyDps": 4.45,
    "averageTheirHits": 11.02,
    "averageTheirDps": 1.15,
    "averageTtk": 76.43,
    "count": 48
  },
  "18": {
    "averageMyHits": 31,
    "averageMyMisses": 8.33,
    "averageMyDps": 4.84,
    "averageTheirHits": 9.92,
    "averageTheirDps": 1.13,
    "averageTtk": 70.29,
    "count": 54
  }
}

Chasm Crawlers range from levels 11-13, so at 16 all of them are blue. Note the massive difference in TTK (Time to kill) from level 16 to 17, this is due to somewhat frequently running into mobs only 3 levels below me, the data shows that these fights take significantly longer. It's the most noticeable level in which you can absolutely tell whether I'm fighting a level 11 mob or a level 13 mob because the results are consistently very different between them.

For example, a lot of my fights at level 16 against these snakes looked like this, start/end are linux timestamps, TTK is in ms: this is almost certainly a level 13 snake (which actually isn't that hard to prove since mob max damage per hit statically scales with their level for the vast majority of monsters so I might go snag that data point later).

{
  "start": 1588113011000,
  "myHits": 42,
  "theirHits": 20,
  "myMisses": 18,
  "end": 1588113136000,
  "timeToKill": 125000,
  "myDps": 2.728,
  "theirDps": 1.344
}

Compare this to many of my fights at that level that look like this:

{
  "start": 1588114078000,
  "myHits": 30,
  "theirHits": 12,
  "myMisses": 8,
  "end": 1588114147000,
  "timeToKill": 69000,
  "myDps": 4.521739130434782,
  "theirDps": 1.3623188405797102
}

Which is almost certainly against a level 11 mob, someone I'm 5 levels above. Note how many fewer hits it takes to kill since I'm hitting for more more often, how many fewer hits I take, and how much less I miss.

At level 18, I was exclusively fighting level 13 snakes, as they're the only ones that con blue at that point. I think its fairly clear that, being 4 or 5 levels above an enemy VS being 2-3 levels above an enemy makes a massive difference in combat even at this low of a level. This gap closes as you gain levels, but that's also why the Blue con gap widens, when you're level 35 you're really looking for level 25 mobs to maintain this kind of lead.

[PlsNoBan]

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

The data so far still proves all of the opposition wrong. I am sorry data trumps "experience".

You have no evidence to back up your claims, or evidence to counter mine. It would be easy to prove me wrong if your claims are correct, but you would rather spend all your time trolling.

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

Sorry to break the bad news

[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?

[cd288]

This is getting amusing now

[PlsNoBan]

I'm like slightly worried DSM has actual mental issues and I'm gonna feel bad for making fun of him so much. It's reaching a point where I think there might really be some screws loose.

[Crede]

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

I'm like slightly worried DSM has actual mental issues and I'm gonna feel bad for making fun of him so much. It's reaching a point where I think there might really be some screws loose.

Let’s be honest most of us have at least minor mental issues engaging in some intense theorycraft discussion of a group composition that will likely never happen in a random community of a few thousand people who play a simulated time locked version of a game created over 20 years ago in which all corrections were made in the modern era.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I'm like slightly worried DSM has actual mental issues and I'm gonna feel bad for making fun of him so much. It's reaching a point where I think there might really be some screws loose.

No evidence to support this. I am honestly more worried about the people like yourself who keep calling other people "autistic" when you don't get your way in a conversation. If you really think I am autistic, it is really sad that like 8 people are trolling an autistic person for no reason. These 8 people can't even provide basic evidence for their own claims lol. It is 8 vs 1 and they still lose to someone who they believe is autistic.

There is nothing about this situation that makes you look good, and you haven't even been able to say anything other than "I am right, and you are wrong", or "I don't like your data, therefore it is wrong". Those aren't valid arguments. I could say the same thing, and we would be at an impasse.