Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yet again you missed my point (or as usual you're twisting words to fit your own argument). It's not that redundancy is a problem. It's that everything the Shaman can offer, another class does BETTER. Better haste/slows, better CC, better healing and buffs overall.

So, yes, I'd much rather have 3 Enchanters all with hasted charm pets and a Cleric mowing through shit in like 5 seconds. That is likely the top 4 person combo in this argument. There's no real combination that can be legitimately argued as better here. A Shaman brings nothing to the table in the optimal combo.

Shamans have the best slow in the game, so you are incorrect there. A group without a Warrior does not need CH, and Torpor/Slow is going to mitigate the damage this group is taking just fine.

3x Enchanters are going to die more due to multiple charm breaks, which nobody wants to take into account.

You are overestimating DPS and CH for this group, while saying Shamans are bad without merit. 300 DPS vs 200 DPS is only saving you a few seconds per kill.

[Gloomlord]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You don't even need to slow when you have three geared and hasted charmed pets lol. It's a blender. I've done it before, slow becomes a waste of mana.

He's going to argue again that it's less safe the more charms you have, then input why Shaman is the best. Then we're going to say the other casters, other than Wizard, are going to be less redundant, and then he'll say we need "evidence".

It's a revolving door of insanity with this child.

Edit: Yep, see? Exactly as I predicted.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You don't even need to slow when you have three geared and hasted charmed pets lol. It's a blender. I've done it before, slow becomes a waste of mana.

If you don't need to slow mobs because they are doing so little damage, you don't need CH either[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] You can't have it both ways. You cannot claim you need extremely efficient heals while also saying you are taking so little damage a Paladin could be your healer.

[Gloomlord]

So then why would we want a Shaman when we could have a Druid? We don't need extremely efficient heals? I'll get the priest that can still heal small amounts of damage whilst having utility that isn't redundant, possibly another charm, snare for the Enchanter charms, POTG and some nice mobility to move this group around.

You've lost the argument.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

So then why would we want a Shaman when we could have a Druid? We don't need extremely efficient heals? I'll get the priest that can still heal small amounts of damage whilst having utility that isn't redundant, possibly another charm, snare for the Enchanter charms, POTG and some nice mobility to move this group around.

You've lost the argument.

Shamans provide more utility than a Druid in combat, and can solo mobs that Enchanters cannot due to restrictions on Charmable mobs in a zone. Shamans can save your party more mana than PoTG by taking on some of the duties an Enchanter would, while also being able to cannibalize. This means they don't need a med break.

[Toxigen]

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

Shamans have the best slow in the game, so you are incorrect there. A group without a Warrior does not need CH, and Torpor/Slow is going to mitigate the damage this group is taking just fine.

3x Enchanters are going to die more due to multiple charm breaks, which nobody wants to take into account.

You are overestimating DPS and CH for this group, while saying Shamans are bad without merit. 300 DPS vs 200 DPS is only saving you a few seconds per kill.

Just wrong on all levels.

You have 3 enchanters to assist on breaks. 3x stuns, mez, etc. Nobody is dying there. And if they do, who cares? Clean it up, cleric rez up, keep going.

DPS isn't overestimated. You're leveling. The more mobs you can kill per hour the better.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Just wrong on all levels.

You have 3 enchanters to assist on breaks. 3x stuns, mez, etc. Nobody is dying there. And if they do, who cares? Clean it up, cleric rez up, keep going.

DPS isn't overestimated. You're leveling. The more mobs you can kill per hour the better.

Again, you don't seem to understand how DPS works.

A level 50 mob in Sebilis has around 8000 HP.

At 200 DPS (2 Enchanters) you are killing that mob in 40 seconds.

At 300 DPS (3 Enchanters) you are killing that mob in 26 seconds.

You aren't going to be getting any more spawns per hour in an XP session by saving 14 seconds per kill. This means a group with 2x Enchanters is getting the same XP as a group with 3x Enchanters.

3x Charmed pets could gang up and kill one Enchanter more easily than 2x Charmed Pets. You are assuming perfect play at all times, someone doesn't afk for a few seconds, etc.

[Gloomlord]

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

Shamans provide more utility than a Druid in combat, and can solo mobs that Enchanters cannot due to restrictions on Charmable mobs in a zone. Shamans can save your party more mana than PoTG by taking on some of the duties an Enchanter would, while also being able to cannibalize. This means they don't need a med break.

If this hypothetical group were indeed going to places where there are restrictions, then they'd go for a Mage and its pet instead. Slow, Mage Malo and Cleric heals? Yes please!

Why the hell would I want a Shaman?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

If this hypothetical group were indeed going to places where there are restrictions, then they'd go for a Mage and its pet instead. Slow, Mage Malo and Cleric heals? Yes please!

Why the hell would I want a Shaman?

A Shaman is much tankier than a Mage pet. There is no reason to prefer a Mage in your scenario. That is why Shamans can solo much harder mobs than a Mage.

[Crede]

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

Shamans have the best slow in the game, so you are incorrect there. A group without a Warrior does not need CH, and Torpor/Slow is going to mitigate the damage this group is taking just fine.

3x Enchanters are going to die more due to multiple charm breaks, which nobody wants to take into account.

You are overestimating DPS and CH for this group, while saying Shamans are bad without merit. 300 DPS vs 200 DPS is only saving you a few seconds per kill.

Just stop responding to this guy. Literally knows nothing about high end stuff and slow resistant mobs.