Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Gloomlord]

Okay, first of all: I never called DSM autistic. My very first post on this thread last year was saying to everyone else to stop calling him autistic. This right here suggests you just want to be self-righteous.

Secondly: yes, I am angry with him. It's not laughable, you hypocrite. It makes sense why someone would be infuriated with someone arguing in the most disingenuous manner possible.

You would also do well to realise I even addressed a similar person to you making the same argument: some people have a personal desire to destroy illogical and insane behaviour. I am one such person.

DSM is equally welcome to ignore this thread if he believes us to be trolls and/or insane and stupid. That goes both ways.

Stop giving an immoral person ammunition, I beg you.

[magnetaress]

Enchanter + necro + druid + cleric.

[Duik]

Im the last poster.

[Gloomlord]

I lost, did I?

Only in your insane mind, I think.

Do you even know the definition of "narcissism"? Because the behaviour you've described doing on your shaman -- root rotting in a group not designed for it to be exact -- is nothing short of arrogant thoughtlessness.

Noone is going to believe I'm being narcissistic here. Not even you.

Don't be fooled into thinking I don't know you're trolling. I'm well aware of it -- and I'm well aware you're doing it to cover for your own insecurities.

[Dritzle]

This thread is wild. DSMs strategy is goofy and I can understand why arguing with DSM is frustrating but they’ve remained cordial about all of the personal attacks. Y’all need to chill, he’s right that calling him names isn’t helping your arguments

[cyxthryth]

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

This thread is wild. DSMs strategy is goofy and I can understand why arguing with DSM is frustrating but they’ve remained cordial about all of the personal attacks. Y’all need to chill, he’s right that calling him names isn’t helping your arguments

I am not arguing, and I am not sure why you believe I "need to chill" if you are including me in the category "y'all". I am - and have only ever been - merely stating irrefutable facts and asking simple questions in an attempt to engage with DSM (& others) in civil discussion relevant to this thread. What could be 'argued' to be "not helping DSM's arguments" is that DSM simply has not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute the following:

DSM has repeatedly provided copy/pastes which simply do not contain any evidence or data of his Shaman performing DPS - or any other action/activity - in an environment/context/scenario that is (or would be) relevant to the discussion; hence his copy/pastes are irrelevant to this discussion.

While DSM is - seemingly - unable or unwilling to provide relevant evidence/data that supports his many claims/statements/positions (which change when he moves the goalposts & edits his posts), I have irrefutable proof of the following, which DSM has as of yet not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute:

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self-evident - of DSM attempting 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":

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.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM attempted to accuse others of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum:

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

The post history is clear. You are now including cyxthryth to try and strengthen your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum argument because you have nothing else. I find it highly amusing.

Here is my reply to DSM's attempt, in which I point out to him the irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - that DSM himself attempted - laughably - to claim (intentionally or otherwise) that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum strengthened his argument when one (1) single other person seemed to agree with him:

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

I think since my post is general, then there was never a goalpost to begin with. Best is whatever you personally think best means.

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

Having multiple conversations simultaneously is not moving goalposts. Talking about pocket clerics when OP didn't specify that was outside of the scope is not moving goalposts. OP's question was general, and he has said as much.

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

Your post would seem to betray that you are aware that you have moved goalposts, because you are now attempting (disingenuously) to validate said goalpost-moving by stating that it is objectively true that the OP's post "is general" and that this somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts" by changing the basis of the discussion (from being about 4 priests/casters, to being about 4 priests/casters plus X amount of pocket Clerics, or other pocket classes). It is not objectively true that you are "not moving the goalposts" just because you and OP both agree that the OP's post "was general" and that that somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts". That is simply you - laughably - claiming you (and OP) are correct due to argumentum ad populum hehe. This really isn't hard.

Please clarify what you mean by stating OP's post "was general"?

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM has claimed:

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

Assuming your group plays correctly, you will DPS the same way every time, the same as if you were solo.

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

I am very confident it won't change in a group scenario.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM has also claimed:

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

in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data

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

Once you add in outside variables, that changes the DPS equation NOT because of what the class can do, but because of what other players are doing.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM's post in which he claimed Troxx's numbers were way different from Allishia's:

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

Also Allishia's numbers were way different from yours

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM's post to Allishia when they provided their initial data in which he claimed Allishia's numbers were the same as Troxx's:

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

Thanks for the data! I'll get the logs from you a bit later today. Just looking at it here, the numbers are the same as Troxx's data.

As I have repeatedly stated - it is not always clear to other posters what particular position/claim/"argument"(s) DSM is defending at any given time due to how often he has moved the goalposts & edited his posts.

For these reasons - which I have repeatedly stated - I am not sure which particular/specific belief/claim/stance/"argument"(s) that DSM is currently holding/defending/"arguing"; it would be helpful if he could elaborate/clarify/specify for the sake of civil discussion.

I am also not sure why DSM has continued to copy/paste his - irrelevant - data, after this exchange occured - which cannot be refuted & is visible and clear in the cleary visible post history - which DSM simply has as of yet not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute

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

The reason why I am reposting the information is because the trolls are trying to hide the information.

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

No. The content of your post seems to include a claim that "the trolls" are trying to "hide the information". The first problem is that your post would seem to indicate that you believe that information will be "hidden" if additional posts are made - that is objectively false/incorrect DSM. Even if additional posts are made after a specific post, the post history is - and will remain - clear hehe.

Now that you have been advised and/or reminded of this irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - you should not need to continue to copy/paste to make sure your posts do not get "hidden" hehe.

I am also not sure why your post(s) would seemingly indicate that you think that the particular data/information that you keep providing in your copy/pasted posts - which includes data/information of your Shaman's performance in an environment/context/scenario that is contrary to the environment/context/scenario relevant to this discussion, as has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple posters - is somehow relevant to this discussion. It is not. It is simply irrelevant for reasons explained in multiple posts by multiple posters (including in this very post).

Even though DSM ultimately - without addressing/replying to/acknowledging/defending/challenging/attempting to refute the above - seemingly conceded by stating the following on 9/18/2022:

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

This will be my last post

DSM has recently returned to this thread & has proceeded posting additional replies - to posters other than myself. This would seemingly indicate DSM has chosen to return to this civil discussion. DSM - of course - still has not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute the aforementioned above quotes, and as is clearly visible in the post history DSM has continued to label me and/or my posts as "a troll"/"trolling", without providing the definition of "troll" / "trolling" that he is using (nor what he meant by stating that OP's post "was general"), and whilst providing zero evidence to support his claims of my being a troll/trolling.

The ball is - still - in DSM's court if he has relevant, factual data to support his various positions/claims/"argument"(s) - and is willing to clarify which particular position/claim/argument(s) he currently holds/"argues", as they change when he moves goalposts or edits his posts - and/or if he would like to provide the definitions he is using for "troll"/"trolling", "nonsense", "silly", "vitriol", "new" and "win" for the sake of civil discussin hehe.

[Gloomlord]

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

This thread is wild. DSMs strategy is goofy and I can understand why arguing with DSM is frustrating but they’ve remained cordial about all of the personal attacks. Y’all need to chill, he’s right that calling him names isn’t helping your arguments

"They"? You mean "DSM"?

Because he hasn't remained "cordial". You're just straight up lying, now.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

"They"? You mean "DSM"?

Because he hasn't remained "cordial". You're just straight up lying, now.

To Summarize: "Everybody who disagrees with me is insane and a liar."

And you wonder why people think you are a silly troll.

You are simply unable to admit you are wrong. Come back when you can back up your points with something other than insults and nonsensical ideas like "you can't play the game in a way I disagree with, it's not possible".

I'll be happy to have an adult conversation with you when you choose to stop acting childish.

[Ripqozko]

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

To Summarize: "Everybody who disagrees with me is insane and a liar."

And you wonder why people think you are a silly troll.

You are simply unable to admit you are wrong. Come back when you can back up your points with something other than insults and nonsensical ideas.

17 pages to go, we know you have to get last word ill help ya get a few more

[Gloomlord]

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

To Summarize: "Everybody who disagrees with me is insane and a liar."

And you wonder why people think you are a silly troll.

You are simply unable to admit you are wrong. Come back when you can back up your points with something other than insults and nonsensical ideas.

I'll be happy to have an adult conversation with you when you choose to stop acting childish.

Trying to gaslight me now?

The overwhelming majority of people in this thread must also be "silly trolls" too, right?

Very cordial...