Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[bcbrown]

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

You are misreading things and getting frustrated. You are the one who quoted me thinking I said Mages should be included.

You said that a mage can replace the DPS of a second enchanter after spending 200 pages arguing that mage DPS sucks. You did not say you thought Mages could be included.

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

If redundancy was that bad, you would pick a Mage over an Enchanter, because they would cover the DPS and also not have redundant spells.

The "if" clause specifies that this is a hypothetical. That's crystal clear that you are not saying a mage should be included, and you are not saying a mage can replace an enchanter. You're talking about a single overlapping aspect of what they each can bring to the group.

"because they would cover the DPS" does not imply that a mage can equal an enchanter, just that the combination of a charm pet and a mage pet hits the sufficiency mark for group DPS.

I understand and accept your argument that there's a sweet spot for group DPS for named camps. I understand and accept that the sweet spot may be less than two charm pets. I understand and accept the argument that if you have two charm pets, mage DPS is overkill and doesn't add much.

But you're still now arguing that mage "covers the DPS" requirement after spending 200 pages arguing mage DPS sucks.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You said that a mage can replace the DPS of a second enchanter after spending 200 pages arguing that mage DPS sucks. You did not say you thought Mages could be included.



The "if" clause specifies that this is a hypothetical. That's crystal clear that you are not saying a mage should be included, and you are not saying a mage can replace an enchanter. You're talking about a single overlapping aspect of what they each can bring to the group.

"because they would cover the DPS" does not imply that a mage can equal an enchanter, just that the combination of a charm pet and a mage pet hits the sufficiency mark for group DPS.

I understand and accept your argument that there's a sweet spot for group DPS for named camps. I understand and accept that the sweet spot may be less than two charm pets. I understand and accept the argument that if you have two charm pets, mage DPS is overkill and doesn't add much.

But you're still now arguing that mage "covers the DPS" requirement after spending 200 pages arguing mage DPS sucks.

I apologize, you did read it correct.

Mages can do a consistent 100 DPS without Epic on a single target, assuming no resists. So Enchanter/Mage would hit the 200 DPS breakpoint. This is using https://wiki.project1999.com/Boots_of_Bladecalling and a Water Pet that is backstabbing. Damage Shield DPS is going to be reduced significantly when mobs are slowed. If you have https://wiki.project1999.com/Burnt_Wood_Staff instead, it's going to be more like 90 DPS. You can weave in mana nukes for a bit more consistent DPS, or dump your mana pool for a higher burst.

[Ripqozko]

We are almost there folks, exciting times

[Gloomlord]

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

I apologize, you did read it correct.

Mages can do a consistent 100 DPS without Epic on a single target, assuming no resists. So Enchanter/Mage would hit the 200 DPS breakpoint. This is using https://wiki.project1999.com/Boots_of_Bladecalling and a Water Pet that is backstabbing. Damage Shield DPS is going to be reduced significantly when mobs are slowed. If you have https://wiki.project1999.com/Burnt_Wood_Staff instead, it's going to be more like 90 DPS. You can weave in mana nukes for a bit more consistent DPS, or dump your mana pool for a higher burst.

So why can't you, for the love of sanity, not understand why most people would prefer a mage over a shaman here?

Or a druid or necromancer for utility, even.

Come on, now. It's time to concede, DSM. Let's put this argument to bed.

[Swish]

If you can get to an area with undead mobs with good dps (Unrest/Lower Guk/City of Mist/KC/Howling Stones) having a necro and enchanter is top tier with the charm pet options. It just depends on your leveling route...and how focused your cleric is [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Dritzle]

Even outside of undead zones, I really like what a necro brings to an 'all caster/priest' quartet with fd, twitch, heals, pet, rez, etc.

I change my vote to Enchx2, Necro, and Shaman/Druid

[Dritzle]

or magex4 because they are the only class where their redundancy actually un-redundants itself

[Swish]

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

or magex4 because they are the only class where their redundancy actually un-redundants itself

That's live TLP style for sure.

[Gloomlord]

If I had a choice between a bit more damage and useless utility, I'd pick the DPS.

We explained this whole thread why Shaman is indeed not better than Mage in this scenario. Do we really have to repeat ourselves ad infinitum?

Also, no: I'd much prefer a Cleric over Shaman. Complete Heal > Torpor.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

If I had a choice between a bit more damage and useless utility, I'd pick the DPS.

We explained this whole thread why Shaman is indeed not better than Mage in this scenario. Do we really have to repeat ourselves ad infinitum?

Also, no: I'd much prefer a Cleric over Shaman. Complete Heal > Torpor.

Apparently you do, because you can't provide any evidence other than your opinion.

I am sorry, but you aren't getting any benefit from killing a mob 10 seconds faster on a 30 minute respawn. I'll take utility over useless DPS any day.

There is a reason why you don't see a lot of 6 player XP groups.