Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[PlsNoBan]

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

what do you want?

I appreciate what you tried to do and every sane person will look at those numbers and realize what we all knew all along. That mages are much better consistent damage in MOST situations than a shaman will ever be. Unfortunately we're arguing with someone who's lost his marbles and refuses to concede his obviously idiotic argument no matter what anyone says or any amount of data showing otherwise. You can jump through literally every hoop he lays out and show numbers that proves him wrong and he'll just move the goalpost.

I'm disappointed in myself really. Deep down I know this person is a moron and can't be reasoned with and its pointless to try. Yet part of me can't help but try to argue some sense into them. I should know better but I never learn my lesson lol

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I appreciate what you tried to do and every sane person will look at those numbers and realize what we all knew all along. That mages are much better consistent damage in MOST situations than a shaman will ever be. Unfortunately we're arguing with someone who's lost his marbles and refuses to concede his obviously idiotic argument no matter what anyone says or any amount of data showing otherwise. You can jump through literally every hoop he lays out and show numbers that proves him wrong and he'll just move the goalpost.

I'm disappointed in myself really. Deep down I know this person is a moron and can't be reasoned with and its pointless to try. Yet part of me can't help but try to argue some sense into them. I should know better but I never learn my lesson lol

Just saying you are right means nothing. Data please. So far your only data is insulting people lol. I don't know what data you are looking at, but the stuff Troxx posted shows pretty low DPS for a Mage to be honest.

[PlsNoBan]

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

breathtaking autism

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Still no data I see[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] You continue to lose the argument by not participating at all lol.

[PlsNoBan]

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

Still no data I see[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] You continue to lose the argument by not participating at all lol.

What the fuck data do you want? Someone posted a parse and you made 15 posts about how its wrong and they need to redo it and say how many times they nuked and how much mana it costs or some shit. Contrary to what you seem to believe I do not possess a lvl 60 mage. The highest I ever got a mage on P99 is like 8. I have no particular love for the class. I actually mained a shaman as you know on P99 and I enjoy the class way more than mage. Yet somehow I'm able to acknowledge that in this hypothetical 4 caster group a shaman isn't the ideal choice. I have ungodly thousands of hours worth of time spent playing this game and know it as good or better than most. What I and almost everyone else knows for a fact is that a mage will out damage a shaman over an extended period of time in an average xp group 99.999% of the time. If you want to keep clinging on to your fucking asinine claim that you can do as much/more damage by root rotting 4 mobs permanently in your xp groups all the time then so be it dude. It takes about 6 brain cells to understand how fucking dumb and unrealistic that is. But if that's the hill you want to die on be my guest.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

What the fuck data do you want? Someone posted a parse and you made 15 posts about how its wrong and they need to redo it and say how many times they nuked and how much mana it costs or some shit. Contrary to what you seem to believe I do not possess a lvl 60 mage. The highest I ever got a mage on P99 is like 8. I have no particular love for the class. I actually mained a shaman as you know on P99 and I enjoy the class way more than mage. Yet somehow I'm able to acknowledge that in this hypothetical 4 caster group a shaman isn't the ideal choice. I have ungodly thousands of hours worth of time spent playing this game and know it as good or better than most. What I and almost everyone else knows for a fact is that a mage will out damage a shaman over an extended period of time in an average xp group 99.999% of the time. If you want to keep clinging on to your fucking asinine claim that you can do as much/more damage by root rotting 4 mobs permanently in your xp groups all the time then so be it dude. It takes about 6 brain cells to understand how fucking dumb and unrealistic that is. But if that's the hill you want to die on be my guest.

What do you mean what do I want? I just want basic DPS and mana usage data from a 60 Mage lol. It's really not a big ask, and doesn't take long. It's REALLY easy to math out which class has better average DPS. Let me know which mob(s) you are fighting so I can fight the same ones on my Shaman, so we get equivalent data based on the difficulty of the mob.

People keep arguing that Mages are good in a group because of Malo + Pet Tanking + DPS. A Shaman can provide all three of those, plus extra. If a Mage's DPS is lower than what people assume, then there really is no reason to pick Mage over Shaman unless you need CoTH support. You did read the title of the thread, yes? We are discussing which classes would be better in this group.

I can't prove your "thousands of hours" of playtime, so it's not a valid data point. I am sorry, but you can be wrong and play thousands of hours simultaneously.

I showed I can do 107 DPS when DoTing just two mobs, so the 4 mobs isn't necessary.

According to Troxx's data a Shaman can out DPS a Mage when DoTing two mobs. He didn't mention how often he can do 40 DPS via nuking due to mana usage, so his average may even be lower. If Troxx (the provider of the data) says the data isn't correct, then provide better data. I am not sure why this is hard.

I will happily admit I am wrong if the data shows otherwise.

Also, please remember I am talking about level 60s. Mages are indeed better than Shamans at lower levels because a Shaman without Epic/Torpor is going to be doing a lot less DPS. I have never said otherwise hehe, you can check the post history.

[PlsNoBan]

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

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No data, just silliness. You can't win an argument that way hehe.

[Danth]

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

but the stuff Troxx posted shows pretty low DPS for a Mage to be honest.

Not really. The overwhelming majority of players over-rate their own damage dealt and typcially only look at or post cherry-picked best-case-scenario parses. Troxx has always been pretty good about trying to keep things grounded to reality. I think you know this, even if you're coming at it from the opposite direction, because you already know the shaman's a better offensive class than most folks fully appreciate.

As for the shaman, your example I expect represents using dual Bane of Nife plus an Envenomed Bolt to get into the mid 90's. That's near 1200 mana per two mobs, for ~45-50 second-odd duration spells, and since it takes a little longer to recover that much mana, plus the offensive spell cast times, you need mobs that are dying at just the right rate then slight gaps between the next pulls if you want to sustain that output. It does not permit the shaman much leeway for using malo (another 350 mana per) or his own slow. Granted Mala costs just as much mana and the magician can't recover mana as quickly as a shaman can so it hurts the magician's mana bar even more.

That's where your opponents are going to pile on: It's doable, but it requires fairly specific circumstances that the group in question has to deliberately maintain while also managing a couple of charm pets and other pulls. The magician achieves effectively its full potential in a brain-dead manner that requires no planning or thought, so in practice it'll tend to reach that level more consistently. But as has been said, I'll prefer the shaman between those two anyway, outside a specific handful of areas, simply because in a group that's already ripping everything to shreds the extra defense offered by the shaman counts for more than a slightly increased killspeed that nobody's even going to notice anyway.

Danth

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Not really. The overwhelming majority of players over-rate their own damage dealt and typcially only look at or post cherry-picked best-case-scenario parses. Troxx has always been pretty good about trying to keep things grounded to reality. I think you know this, even if you're coming at it from the opposite direction, because you already know the shaman's a better offensive class than most folks fully appreciate.

As for the shaman, your example I expect represents using dual Bane of Nife plus an Envenomed Bolt to get into the mid 90's. That's near 1200 mana per two mobs, for ~45-50 second-odd duration spells, and since it takes a little longer to recover that much mana, plus the offensive spell cast times, you need mobs that are dying at just the right rate then slight gaps between the next pulls if you want to sustain that output. It does not permit the shaman much leeway for using malo (another 350 mana per) or his own slow. Granted Mala costs just as much mana and the magician can't recover mana as quickly as a shaman can so it hurts the magician's mana bar even more.

That's where your opponents are going to pile on: It's doable, but it requires fairly specific circumstances that the group in question has to deliberately maintain while also managing a couple of charm pets and other pulls. The magician achieves effectively its full potential in a brain-dead manner that requires no planning or thought, so in practice it'll tend to reach that level more consistently. But as has been said, I'll prefer the shaman between those two anyway, outside a specific handful of areas, simply because in a group that's already ripping everything to shreds the extra defense offered by the shaman counts for more than a slightly increased killspeed that nobody's even going to notice anyway.

Danth

I trust the screenshot he sent, which shows 80 DPS. I have no reason to doubt it. However, I don't know what he means when he says he can do 180 DPS. That is what I am questioning. I could do 180 DPS too if I piled on an additional DoT in one of my previous examples. That doesn't mean I could sustain it hehe.

For the DPS calculation it depends on the situation. Epic Click + Pox on two root/rotted mobs is 65 DPS for 860 mana. With Pet that is basically 75 DPS. This assumes you are having the Shaman root/rotting mobs while the Enchanters are fighting other mobs, which allows the DoTs to fully finish. The math is (1425 + 2088) / 108 seconds = 32.5 DPS per mob, + 11 from pet.

If you want a faster "combat DPS", you would use Bane + Envenomed for 60 DPS, and with a pet that would be 71 DPS. Both end up costing 750 mana. Since there is no change in damage, the math is (214 + 146) / 6 = 60 DPS per mob, + 11 from pet. You don't need full duration here, each tick is 60 DPS. Pet average DPS will obviously vary a bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjZxMlJSCDc using this video, it looks like you can Torpor recover mana at around 15 mana per second. If you include C2, it is more like 17 mana per second. This means you can recover the 800 mana in 47 seconds. That is easily the length of a fight if Enchanters are fighting 2 mobs with charmed pets.

Math-wise Mages just don't really offer much in this group, other than maybe a little bit more DPS if you don't want to have the Shaman root rot hehe. As you say, the difference in kill speed is negligible with two Enchanters typically.