Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Troxx]

I’m bored at work so I’m getting caught up. So far up to page 225. Apparently while I was out enjoying life DSM really took a pegging …

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

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I’m bored at work so I’m getting caught up. So far up to page 225. Apparently while I was out enjoying life DSM really took a pegging …

Not at all. The data continues to support what I have said.

Simply trolling isn't proving a point, or contributing in any meaningful way.

[cyxthryth]

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

Not at all. The data continues to support what I have said.

The current data is as follows for anybody who has forgotten what DSM has said:

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

OP never said you couldn't have a pocket cleric. I am not sure why people keep thinking this is not a possible route to take. Between four people it would be trivial to level a cleric to 39. It is pretty common for people to make pocket clerics on P99.

DSM attempted to move the goalposts by bringing a 5th "pocket" character into his "arguments" (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument) pertaining to the "Best 4 person all caster/priest group" discussion.


Of course - speaking strictly mathematically - 4=/=5, so it is unclear why DSM has attempted to bring this 5th character into the equation or why his posts would seem to indicate that believes doing so is not an example of him moving goalposts - when it objectively is - hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Troxx]

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

[Troxx]

Up to page 240 and it still isn’t lookin’ good for your anus

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

[Troxx]

Lol we are back to copy/pasting his napkin-math dissertation!


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

So far:
-shamans are almost as good dps as mages (wrong)
-warriors solo better than enchanters after they get charm (wrong)
-shamans can root rot 5 mobs in fast moving xp groups to “help out” (wrong)
-unnecessary utility is better than more dps cause moar heals/utility always bettah (wrong)
-we are bringing pocket clerics into this theoretical discussion (lol wtf?)

This thread keeps on giving!

[PlsNoBan]

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

So far:
-shamans are almost as good dps as mages (wrong)
-warriors solo better than enchanters after they get charm (wrong)
-shamans can root rot 5 mobs in fast moving xp groups to “help out” (wrong)
-unnecessary utility is better than more dps cause moar heals/utility always bettah (wrong)
-we are bringing pocket clerics into this theoretical discussion (lol wtf?)

This is pretty accurate. The goalpost moving and changing arguments on the fly is getting out of hand lol. You can't have an honest discussion with someone that won't even acknowledge when they're backed into a corner and pinned down with a contradiction of their own words. His own data that he loves so much proves the opposite of his initial argument and he won't even admit that. He just moved the goalpost and changed the argument to "DPS doesn't matter after this arbitrary DSM breakpoint that I made up" so he can act like his useless utility and heals matter more. It's funny how hyper focused he was on proving how much DPS shamans can do then the data proved mages do way more and on a fucking dime he changes to "DPS dont matter if its not enough to get an entire extra spawn cycle in like an hour cause nobody on p99 plays the game all day long (lol)" which is completely ludicrous for a variety of reasons. The pocket cleric argument is ALMOST the most retarded thing he's ever said. Warriors soloing better than enchanters still holds the crown tho imo.

Said it before and will say it again: Either biggest troll I've ever seen or legitimately one of the stupidest. Not sure which is better honestly. I guess 3rd possible option is he's legitimately mentally handicapped IRL and we're all pieces of shit for making fun of the disabled kid. Not really our fault tho there's no way for anyone to know.

[Kich867]

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

So far:
-shamans are almost as good dps as mages (wrong)
-warriors solo better than enchanters after they get charm (wrong)
-shamans can root rot 5 mobs in fast moving xp groups to “help out” (wrong)
-unnecessary utility is better than more dps cause moar heals/utility always bettah (wrong)
-we are bringing pocket clerics into this theoretical discussion (lol wtf?)

This thread keeps on giving!

The rest is whatever, but, the point about warriors was that at low levels, pre-30ish, a twinked warrior levels faster than enchanters. If it's not faster, I'm sure it's quite close, but I'm pretty sure you could level a twinked warrior faster than you could level a twinked [any caster] because twinking melee characters is extremely powerful at low levels relative to casters.

Like, starting fresh twinked characters, the warrior would get a huge lead anyways because they basically insta-kill everything they touch until they're like level 15.

I don't care how you feel about DSM but people trying to say that low level twinked casters are somehow faster at soloing than twinked [any melee character] who have just way, way higher DPS and tankiness at those levels makes me think I'm taking crazy pills. Once the bullshit of twink gear fades, totally, I agree with you, the raw power of casters is just better, but low level mobs aren't really designed to handle the damage output of the dank ass weapons, haste, and regen items you can give melee characters.

I've never heard the take that low level melee twinks are bad at leveling, ever. Am I crazy? Like I honestly can't tell if this is just some stupid contrarian take because you don't like DSM or you've just never given a melee character dope gear and plowed through the beginning of the game before.

[PlsNoBan]

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

The rest is whatever, but, the point about warriors was that at low levels, pre-30ish, a twinked warrior levels faster than enchanters. If it's not faster, I'm sure it's quite close, but I'm pretty sure you could level a twinked warrior faster than you could level a twinked [any caster] because twinking melee characters is extremely powerful at low levels relative to casters.

Like, starting fresh twinked characters, the warrior would get a huge lead anyways because they basically insta-kill everything they touch until they're like level 15.

I don't care how you feel about DSM but people trying to say that low level twinked casters are somehow faster at soloing than twinked [any melee character] who have just way, way higher DPS and tankiness at those levels makes me think I'm taking crazy pills. Once the bullshit of twink gear fades, totally, I agree with you, the raw power of casters is just better, but low level mobs aren't really designed to handle the damage output of the dank ass weapons, haste, and regen items you can give melee characters.

I've never heard the take that low level melee twinks are bad at leveling, ever. Am I crazy? Like I honestly can't tell if this is just some stupid contrarian take because you don't like DSM or you've just never given a melee character dope gear and plowed through the beginning of the game before.

He specifically said no fungi/regen items. He had like 2 mediocre weapons and a SCHW and claimed to out solo an enchanter cause his DPS was higher than a charm pet in his mid 20s. First of all: debatable and depends on the charm pet and what weapons. You also have to consider damage caps for melee at low lvl limiting the effectiveness of twink weapons. He also openly admitted to not hasting his charm pets in this comparison. He also acted like it was an absurd idea that you could get free mage pet toys in EC for your charms. Something I did frequently when leveling my enc. None of that matters though cause fact of the matter is that without a fungi and the only twinking being weapons and a SCHW a warrior is going to have fairly large periods of downtime. The DPS could be 3x higher than a charm pet (it's not) and warrior would still lose due to downtime. There's no fucking chance a warrior solos with less downtime than an enc with no regen item or buffs. DSM in typical DSM fashion completely disregarded this and just kept talking about his questionable DPS data cause that's what suited his agenda at that particular moment. It changes frequently around here.

Everyone knows heavy twinking with fungi is a game changer. A fully twinked warrior with fungi almost certainly will solo more effectively in early levels. I'm not sure precisely when the enchanter would overtake warrior regardless of twink status. Probably somewhere around low-mid 30s? Certainly by 40 a well played enc is clowning a warrior no matter what they're wearing. Charm pets start to scale and become significantly more powerful than melee players of equivalent level. Also the effectiveness of a fungi tunic gets significantly weaker the higher level you get. Unless you're soloing weak LB's for minimal xp you're still going to have way more downtime than enc. Prolly more downtime even killing LB's at 40+

[Karanis]

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

He specifically said no fungi/regen items. He had like 2 mediocre weapons and a SCHW and claimed to out solo an enchanter cause his DPS was higher than a charm pet in his mid 20s. First of all: debatable and depends on the charm pet and what weapons. He also openly admitted to not hasting his charm pets in this comparison. He also acted like it was an absurd idea that you could get free mage pet toys in EC for your charms. Something I did frequently when leveling my enc. None of that matters though cause fact of the matter is that without a fungi and the only twinking being weapons and a SCHW a warrior is going to have fairly large periods of downtime. The DPS could be 3x higher than a charm pet (it's not) and warrior would still lose due to downtime. There's no fucking chance a warrior solos with less downtime than an enc with no regen item or buffs.

DSM in typical DSM fashion completely disregarded this and just kept talking about his questionable DPS data cause that's what suited his agenda at that particular moment. It changes frequently around here.

thrust.jpg