Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Gloomlord]

There is no redundancy in this group. The 2nd Enchanter brings an extra charm pet. The cleric is casting CH on the charm, and faster heals on the Enchanter should they get into a bit of trouble.

There is nothing of worth Shaman brings to the table here that isn't already covered.

You know who can output decent damage whilst breaking even less of a sweat? Mage. And they don't need to expend mana to do so either. They can also cast a slightly weaker version of Malo that still does the trick.

Does anyone else want to take over? I don't see what else I can say at this point. The man is wilfully ignoring the reality here.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

There is no redundancy in this group. The 2nd Enchanter brings an extra charm pet. The cleric is casting CH on the charm, and faster heals on the Enchanter should they get into a bit of trouble.

There is nothing of worth Shaman brings to the table here that isn't already covered.

You know who can output decent damage whilst breaking even less of a sweat? Mage. And they don't need to expend mana to do so either. They can also cast a slightly weaker version of Malo that still does the trick.

Does anyone else want to take over? I don't see what else I can say at this point. The man is wilfully ignoring the reality here.

2 of the exact same spellbook is not redundancy? It is the definition, in fact! I am sorry, but you don't even know what the word means, nor can you explain why the redundancy is bad. You just keep saying it in the hopes it will make sense.

You would sound better if you didn't say "Shaman brings nothing to the table". Torpor and Malo are two things they bring to the table, are powerful spells, and aren't redundant with an Enchanter. You can't even be bothered to try and make an argument.

This is why you are almost certainly a troll.

[bcbrown]

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

I apologize, you did read it correct.

I appreciate and accept the apology. I apologize for getting frustrated with you.

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [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. Having 2 copies of an Enchanters spellbook is more useful than a Mage's spellbook, unless you need CoTH.

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.

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

2 Enchanters have the same spell book, and Clerics share Lull/Root/Stun with Enchanters. I cannot believe you think this argument makes you look good. You need to explain why the "redundancy" is a problem.

If you find an argument (subscribed to by most other participants in this thread) nonsensical, I would posit that either A: it's not worth interacting with those participants as they are equally nonsensical as the argument; or B: your understanding of the argument differs materially from the understanding of the other participants, who are sensible. Are you interested in the possibility of B? Are you willing to extend the debate principle of charity to me, and listen to what I say without accusing me of bad faith or not understanding what you say?

Are you willing to accept the following postulates as precondition for this discussion between the two of us?
* No "pocket characters" are to be included. The group of four casters must be completly self-sufficient, except from one port into their destination from Dial-A-Port. No pocket rez, no pocket POTG, no pocket buffs.
* The original question includes no real context. Your perspective is colored by a focus on named camps where everyone is 60 with ~more or less~ epic and full gear. My perspective is colored by a focus on leveling 1-50 untwinked, especially random adventuring through an entire dungeon, instead of camping a single named mob. Both of these perspectives are subjective.
* The group is to stay together and not to split their focus. I understand and accept your argument that a shaman can add DPS by root rotting away from or ahead of the rest of the group. I'm glad you can find groups that let you play the way you like to play, but I find the scenario abhorrent, and I do not wish to consider it any further.
* Can we agree that some spells can be almost completely redundant (two shamans can't both cast Bane Of Nife on the same mob), and some spells can be almost completely non-redundant (two wizards casting the same nuke on a mob that's not insta-killed by the first one that lands)?

[Gloomlord]

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

2 of the exact same spellbook is not redundancy? It is the definition, in fact! I am sorry, but you don't even know what the word means, nor can you explain why the redundancy is bad. You just keep saying it in the hopes it will make sense.

You would sound better if you didn't say "Shaman brings nothing to the table". Torpor and Malo are two things they bring to the table, are powerful spells, and aren't redundant with an Enchanter. You can't even be bothered to try and make an argument.

This is why you are almost certainly a troll.

Torpor is redundant. We have Complete Heal. Mage also brings their own version of Malo. A 2nd Enchanter is not redundant because they bring a 2nd charm. Enchanter and Cleric are the cornerstone of this group, so it's basically more DPS at that point. In which case, Enchanters bring some of the best DPS in the game, and so the 2nd Enchanter is not redundant.

What does Shaman bring? Unneeded healing and crappy damage by comparison.

Your last sentence proclaiming me to be a troll is just you projecting yourself to me when it becomes clear you've lost.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I appreciate and accept the apology. I apologize for getting frustrated with you.

No worries!

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

If you find an argument (subscribed to by most other participants in this thread) nonsensical, I would posit that either A: it's not worth interacting with those participants as they are equally nonsensical as the argument; or B: your understanding of the argument differs materially from the understanding of the other participants, who are sensible. Are you interested in the possibility of B? Are you willing to extend the debate principle of charity to me, and listen to what I say without accusing me of bad faith or not understanding what you say?

I am perfectly willing admit I am wrong, and have done so in the past. The issue is people are making claims without evidence. When I provide evidence, it is dismissed in favor of someone saying "I am right, and you are wrong". There is no logical reason to take that kind of argument over an argument with evidence. I have played this game for many years. I have a good understanding of it. Do I know everything? Of course not. But I have played a 60 Shaman and a 60 Cleric. I know what they are capable of.

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

Are you willing to accept the following postulates as precondition for this discussion between the two of us?
* No "pocket characters" are to be included. The group of four casters must be completly self-sufficient, except from one port into their destination from Dial-A-Port. No pocket rez, no pocket POTG, no pocket buffs.
* The original question includes no real context. Your perspective is colored by a focus on named camps where everyone is 60 with ~more or less~ epic and full gear. My perspective is colored by a focus on leveling 1-50 untwinked, especially random adventuring through an entire dungeon, instead of camping a single named mob. Both of these perspectives are subjective.
* The group is to stay together and not to split their focus. I understand and accept your argument that a shaman can add DPS by root rotting away from or ahead of the rest of the group. I'm glad you can find groups that let you play the way you like to play, but I find the scenario abhorrent, and I do not wish to consider it any further.
* Can we agree that some spells can be almost completely redundant (two shamans can't both cast Bane Of Nife on the same mob), and some spells can be almost completely non-redundant (two wizards casting the same nuke on a mob that's not insta-killed by the first one that lands)?

I am not willing to accept these terms.

1. OP did not specify any preconditions, so they are moot.

2. These preconditions are designed to restrict the conversation to try and make certain classes favorable for specific scenarios. This creates a situation where you inevitably compare apples to oranges. Someone will fervently try to win the argument by creating a scenario where their favorite class is the best, and then use that to claim another class can never be superior. The reality is you level characters to get to level 60. You need to think about what a level 60 character is doing. A conversation about "efficient groups" is not very useful in the lower levels. The content is so easy you can use just about any 4 man group, other than perhaps all rogues.

3. It is a fact that on a 10+ year old server, many people have druid/cleric alts, and they are also easy to create if a player wishes. Trying to say you cannot bring a pocket Cleric or Druid is nonsensical.

4. There is no reason to require the group to stay together. Your personal opinion on what a group should do is not relevant to the objective truth of what a specific group composition is capable of. If you choose not to utilize your group's capabilities, that is not the fault of the class or composition.

5. Some spells cannot be used simultaneously on the same mob, as they will simply replace one another. We agree on this. But you CAN cast the same spell on two different mobs at the same time. Having 2 people casting slow on two mobs at once can potentially save the group from wiping, as a simple example. This is why having 2 Enchanters isn't a bad thing. They can overlap stuns, mez multiple targets at the same time, slow multiple targets at the same time, etc. This is generally an emergency situation, but emergencies are when your spells really matter. If you are just mindlessly churning through easy mobs, you aren't really using your class's full strength anyway.

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

Torpor is redundant. We have Complete Heal. Mage also brings their own version of Malo. A 2nd Enchanter is not redundant because they bring a 2nd charm. Enchanter and Cleric are the cornerstone of this group, so it's basically more DPS at that point. In which case, Enchanters bring some of the best DPS in the game, and so the 2nd Enchanter is not redundant.

What does Shaman bring? Unneeded healing and crappy damage by comparison.

Your last sentence proclaiming me to be a troll is just you projecting yourself to me when it becomes clear you've lost.

You bring the Shaman instead of the Cleric because CH isn't really necessary for the content this group will be doing. Shaman Malo is better, and Mage DPS isn't helping.

[Gloomlord]

You're not willing to accept them because you know you've lost.

As if you bringing in root rotting in a charm group and bringing "pocket" classes wasn't already an admission of your defeat.

Now you're claiming the 2nd Enchanter is redundant. Your insanity is spiralling further and further out of control.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You're not willing to accept them because you know you've lost.

As if you bringing in root rotting in a charm group and bringing "pocket" classes wasn't already an admission of your defeat.

Now you're claiming the 2nd Enchanter is redundant. Your insanity is spiralling further and further out of control.

I didn't create the requirement of no pocket classes, nor did OP. There is no reason for me to stick to this requirement.

The issue here is you think redundancy is bad. Perhaps we are using different variations of the word? I am thinking of hardware redundancy, where you have multiple pieces of hardware to prevent a failure. Redundancy is a good thing in this case.

If you are using redundancy to mean superfluous, then you are completely wrong that a Shaman offers nothing in a group of four players. Spell overlap isn't a bad thing, as 2 Enchanters have complete spell overlap.

[Gloomlord]

They pad out the group more, sure. But then Mage, Druid and Necromancer is just a better padding.

Better DPS on single target, which requires only 2 keybinds to enact, and still brings a Malo to help the 2 Enchanters. Mage is better in this group.

It's done; it's dusted. Give up.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

They pad out the group more, sure. But then Mage, Druid and Necromancer is just a better padding.

Better DPS on single target, which requires only 2 keybinds to enact, and still brings a Malo to help the 2 Enchanters. Mage is better in this group.

It's done; it's dusted. Give up.

It's done. Give up. See? I can do the same thing.

[Gloomlord]

And yet you've beaten in logic every single time. You refuse to admit the logic.

You are not some noble hearted man on a mission to show everyone the truth. You are a psychotic man-child living in denial, then having the gall to act self-righteous.

There is nothing more to you than that.