Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Danth]

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

For me, utility has extremely diminishing returns.

This is always going to make this type of debate unending because utility doesn't have a set value and doesn't show up on a convenient log parser. Different folks value it differently. I've had that argument before in game with couple of friends who had a monk and shaman duo. After a friendly competition we were all slightly surprised to see the wife and I (sk/shaman) had more kills over a 5 hour period than they did because they died a couple times and we did not. Even that could've gone the other way. At the end of the game EQ's a fairly loosely-tuned game and offers different ways of achieving success. That success *is* a finite end point: There reaches a point in any player's career where there is no more loot he cares about, where platinum no longer matters. Nearly any group discussed in this thread could reach such a point and in truth there won't be THAT much difference in how long it takes them to get there given equal effort.

(edit--for the post below)

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

... but I do believe most people have an "APM bucket".

Maybe....but equally as maybe the shaman player's already a bit manic and can simply go longer than the lazier dude who picks a magician. I definitely know shamans who are very much capable of maintaining their constant activity for hours on end, and keeping it up for years. I'm married to one such EQ'er. I sure as heck wouldn't do that, I hate shaman mechanics, I'll stick with my SK, thanks. The wife's far enough to the other end that as her health has declined and she's less physically able to play the shaman consistently anymore, she'd mostly rather not play at all than play a lower-activity character like her druid or cleric. Some people are funny like that--and because of that, for the sake of this type of discussion we might as well assume that the characters in question are being played similarly for similar lengths of time. That's really all we can control for. Likewise the magician is WAY better for limited players (kids, non-gamers, etc), dramatically better, but we can't really control for player ability either other than to passingly aknowledge that advantage.

Danth

[Crede]

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

Except it simply isn't true that you would need to go "bonkers". That is the point you are missing.

A level 60 group is not pulling 70+ mobs an hour in most camps. A Shaman will have plenty of time between pulls to recover mana in most cases.

If a level 60 group is pulling 70+ mobs an hour, that means you are in an easier zone like Velks, Seb, etc., where the Shaman can go off and root/rot mobs to deal good DPS if that's what the group needs.

Utility does not have diminishing returns at all. If you don't have CC, Heals, etc., you die in a lot of areas hehe. Any area where you don't need CC, Heals, etc., the content is already so trivial your Mage could probably face tank the mobs themselves just fine. At that point we are talking about farming greens or something. At that point a Shaman could again just go around root/rotting everything hehe.

It is a fact that games are built on Math and Logic. It is not a fallacy at all. It is quite easy to figure the math out if you know the variables.

The only fallacy here is people are trying to use the "people are lazy argument" to lower the DPS of a Shaman, while keeping a Mage's DPS the same. That just isn't a good argument, because a lazy Mage is going to be doing less DPS too. Whether you are intentionally doing it or not, you are trying to find a way to increase the DPS gap between a Mage and a Shaman without using actual data. You just have some fuzzy concept about what you think players do. This isn't an insult, it is simply what you are doing when you field this kind of argument.

Yes but as a shaman is recovering the mana, so will the mage. It favors them even more because they can start nuking more heavily if you're just waiting on mobs. Going off and root rotting a bunch of mobs to increase your dps requires more actions still, and most shamans dont do this hehe.

You're not understanding diminishing returns. Saying "healing/cc is needed or you die" has nothing to do with diminishing returns. You don't need 3 healers to beat fungi king. It has a minimum amount needed then after that it becomes more and more useless.

You missed my point about Math/Logic. I never said the game wasn't built on it. I'm saying it doesn't always play out as you predict it will, because humans/users are random. Math doesn't account for a human who decides to watch netflix on the other screen in your xp group.

A lazy mage can basically dps what a non-lazy shaman is doing. Even slightly beat it. A lazy mage can send in the pet, and click velk boots. And probably put out around 80 dps on average. A shaman who decides to be just as lazy with their APM is probably doing like 30-40 dps. This is factual, because mages were designed to be a group dps class, shamans were not.

And yea, I agree, the data doesn't technically exist, but I do believe most people have an "APM bucket". If you've ever played Starcraft competitively at a high level, usually after X amount of games you're just done. It just gets tiring. EQ is definitely less APM than Starcraft, but the same point still applies. A shaman will likely hit their point of laziness sooner that a mage. And I'd bet money if we could get a sample of lets say 100 mages/shamans and record their dps over time, the shaman will lose even more ground simply due to that fact.

We aren't all robots hehe, humans are quiet lazy beings.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

This is always going to make this type of debate unending because utility doesn't have a set value and doesn't show up on a convenient log parser. Different folks value it differently. I've had that argument before in game with couple of friends who had a monk and shaman duo. After a friendly competition we were all slightly surprised to see the wife and I (sk/shaman) had more kills over a 5 hour period than they did because they died a couple times and we did not. Even that could've gone the other way. At the end of the game EQ's a fairly loosely-tuned game and offers different ways of achieving success. That success *is* a finite end point: There reaches a point in any player's career where there is no more loot he cares about, where platinum no longer matters. Nearly any group discussed in this thread could reach such a point and in truth there won't be THAT much difference in how long it takes them to get there given equal effort.

Danth

Agreed.

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

Yes but as a shaman is recovering the mana, so will the mage. It favors them even more because they can start nuking more heavily if you're just waiting on mobs. Going off and root rotting a bunch of mobs to increase your dps requires more actions still, and most shamans dont do this hehe.

You're not understanding diminishing returns. Saying "healing/cc is needed or you die" has nothing to do with diminishing returns. You don't need 3 healers to beat fungi king. It has a minimum amount needed then after that it becomes more and more useless.

You missed my point about Math/Logic. I never said the game wasn't built on it. I'm saying it doesn't always play out as you predict it will, because humans/users are random. Math doesn't account for a human who decides to watch netflix on the other screen in your xp group.

A lazy mage can basically dps what a non-lazy shaman is doing. Even slightly beat it. A lazy mage can send in the pet, and click velk boots. And probably put out around 80 dps on average. A shaman who decides to be just as lazy with their APM is probably doing like 30-40 dps. This is factual, because mages were designed to be a group dps class, shamans were not.

And yea, I agree, the data doesn't technically exist, but I do believe most people have an "APM bucket". If you've ever played Starcraft competitively at a high level, usually after X amount of games you're just done. It just gets tiring. EQ is definitely less APM than Starcraft, but the same point still applies. A shaman will likely hit their point of laziness sooner that a mage. And I'd bet money if we could get a sample of lets say 100 mages/shamans and record their dps over time, the shaman will lose even more ground simply due to that fact.

We aren't all robots hehe, humans are quiet lazy beings.

The Shaman is recovering mana much faster. It's really on a different level from the Mage. I am not sure why it is difficult to press "root" and "Epic" a few times, while running around. That is pretty simple, and most classes do it when they are soloing.

The interesting thing is you are using the "lazy player" argument (people are semi AFK watching Netflix), but you don't understand that redundancy in utility is even better in this case. If you only have one healer (a cleric), they may miss the first few seconds of a 2 pet charm break. That could easily be the difference between life and death. Having multiple healers means you have less chance that both the Shaman and the Cleric are watching Netflix at the same time. That is one place where the redundancy really shines, because even one group wipe is going to destroy whatever slight DPS lead a Mage is giving you. The other benefit to redundancy is people can only cast one spell at a time. Having the Shaman spamming slow on Fungi King means the enchanters can focus on other things like double stunning.

[Crede]

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

Agreed.



The Shaman is recovering mana much faster. It's really on a different level from the Mage. I am not sure why it is difficult to press "root" and "Epic" a few times, while running around. That is pretty simple, and most classes do it when they are soloing.

The funny thing is you are using the "lazy player" argument (people are semi AFK watching Netflix), but you don't understand that redundancy in utility is even better in this case. If you only have one healer (a cleric), they may miss the first few seconds of a 2 pet charm break. That could easily be the difference between life and death. Having multiple healers means you have less chance that both the Shaman and the Cleric are watching Netflix. That is one place where the redundancy really shines, because even one group wipe is going to destroy whatever slight DPS lead a Mage is giving you.

Yea but then you have a strong mage pet to pick up the break, one that is stronger than a shaman's pet, and more dps. And moving around/rooting/rotting/positioning/canni/etc. is a lot more work than just sitting there, nuking, and sit/stand hehe.

This is a game of centimeters & milliseconds. Most are taking the DPS edge if they can get it. To most it's worth the risk of not having that double healer if it means they can get a few more DPS.

If you value this Safety utility differently, that is fine, but I don't think this applies to the majority of players. I think most would agree that 100% Necessary Utility > DPS > "Safety" Utility. I'm not claiming I'm right about this, but it's my opinion from the experiences I've had.

[Toxigen]

this is the dumbest fucking shit ive ever seen how the fuck did you spergs take this all the way to 50 pages

fuck.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

this is the dumbest fucking shit ive ever seen how the fuck did you spergs take this all the way to 50 pages

fuck.

Right back at you[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Stop sperging in this thread with nonsense.

[Danth]

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

I think most would agree that 100% Necessary Utility > DPS > "Safety" Utility. I'm not claiming I'm right about this, but it's my opinion from the experiences I've had.

No argument; my experience agrees. Most folks tend to downplay deaths/setbacks/etc as "doesn't count." A lot of folks simply LIKE faster killspeed even if it comes with more setbacks/etc, and it's also hard to put a value on plain old fun. I'm not even calling 'em right or wrong, just it is what it is and the general preference for offense in-game is indeed noticeable. The wife and I have quite often felt like the proverbial tortise in a world of hares: Slow but consistent, getting to the end in a similar length of time because our fastest isn't as fast but we don't have as many setbacks either.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Yea but then you have a strong mage pet to pick up the break, one that is stronger than a shaman's pet, and more dps. And moving around/rooting/rotting/positioning/canni/etc. is a lot more work than just sitting there, nuking, and sit/stand hehe.

This is a game of centimeters & milliseconds. Most are taking the DPS edge if they can get it. To most it's worth the risk of not having that double healer if it means they can get a few more DPS.

If you value this Safety utility differently, that is fine, but I don't think this applies to the majority of players. I think most would agree that 100% Necessary Utility > DPS > "Safety" Utility. I'm not claiming I'm right about this, but it's my opinion from the experiences I've had.

That's where most people probably differ in this thread.

From my years of experience a bit of extra DPS isn't worth the extra risk. Most mobs have pretty low HP in this game, so kill speeds are generally fine unless you are purposely trying to make the slowest group comp you possibly could.

Even one group wipe destroys the DPS advantage of a Mage vs. a Shaman. At best you are set back 10-30 minutes (if you are lucky), at worst your group disbands hehe.

Adding 30 DPS to a group with 2x Enchanter pets is going to give you a lot less benefit than the extra utility and safety a Shaman has to offer. Never wiping is a good way to out-perform a high DPS group that is wiping.

[Toxigen]

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

This is a game of centimeters & milliseconds.

Nah. Don't confuse 25 year old elf sim with modern competitive online games.

EQ is a game of doing the same thing over and over and over again in the proper order.

[PlsNoBan]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hyperfocus is the perpetual and unrelenting state of intense single-minded concentration fixated on one thought pattern at a time, to the exclusion of everything else. (Journal of Neurology & Neurophysiology 2020)

Autistic players probably have less issues being hyper focused on mashing buttons in the proper sequence sitting at their desk for 18 hrs straight than regular players. Maybe this is why DSM is confused at the concept of mental fatigue and not being able to play 100% perfectly all day long without losing focus and doesn't understand that playing a shaman to the level he's talking about requires significantly more focus and attention than hitting 1-2 buttons and sitting as a mage.

All jokes aside having autism kinda seems like having video game superpowers and I'm a little jealous