Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Jesus, it really can be tiring to try to debate you.

> I am not trying to force anybody to play any class. If one of your players really likes Mage, great! A Mage won't destroy your group.

> I am trying to rebut the strange argument that Shamans cannot be included in this four man group, and are a bad pick or a bad class.

These two paragraphs are diametrically opposed. No one else is forcing you to not play a shaman. If you really like playing a shaman, great! It won't destroy your group. No one is saying "cannot be included" or "bad pick", especially not "bad class".

>The discussion has been about what the most efficient four man group is, not which groups are unplayable.

Yes, that's EXACTLY why no one is saying you can't play a shaman in this hypothetical group. They're saying it's not the "most efficient". They aren't saying it's a "bad pick". Saying "a mage is a better pick than a shaman" is not saying "a shaman is a bad pick."

You are misreading things and getting frustrated. You are the one who quoted me thinking I said Mages should be included. I am simply clarifying what my points were from all those quotes you posted. Don't blame me when you are quoting a bunch of my posts. Shamans are a top pick for efficiency, because Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a highly efficient trio. If you understand why that trio is strong, you will understand why it translates to a four man group.

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

> This is why the "redundancy" argument is silly, because you are NOT simply picking a second Enchanter for DPS. ... Ironically, the same people who are arguing for redundancy (3x Enchanters) use that same argument to try and say Shamans are bad because of redundancy. It is nonsensical.

You're aggressively misunderstanding the redundancy argument, I think. The reason redundant enchanters are good is because of the charm pet. A shaman cannot charm a pet. That's it. If a group could only have a single charm pet then absolutely no one would be advocating triple-enchanter groups.

I am not aggressively misunderstanding the redundancy argument. People are being very clear about it. You wouldn't put multiple Enchanters in a group if having multiple copies of a single spellbook was extremely inefficient. It is really that simple.

People would say "Enchanter/Mage/Necro/Cleric", because you are getting good DPS from the three pets, and different spellbooks.

In reality a Shaman's spellbook synergizes well with an Enchanter, and having 2x Enchanter spellbooks is great. Charming is NOT the only reason to take multiple Enchanters.

[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.

[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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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.

Because I understand the game well enough to know that a Mage only offers DPS in a group that doesn't need more DPS. So why would you bring one? If you need CoTH, go for it. Otherwise a Shaman will be better than the Mage.

I did suggest Necromancer as well. Enchanter/Enchanter/Necromancer/Shaman is an amazing combo.