Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Duik]

So the sham is torp tanking and either/both/all of the following... spot healing any chanter, malo, root, sunbeam, rotting 3-4 other mobs with epic, AndAnythingElseIHaventThoughtOf.

Chanelling must really be broken if we can be certain of not eating an interupt at an inopportune moment at some point.
With such a central and important group roll what with tanking and dpsing and healing and rooting etc being "ready" could pose a problem.

Is this what dsm is suggesting is the best?

[bcbrown]

Troxx in your re-read has anyone been receptive towards or in agreement with DSM's pocket thoughts?

[Troxx]

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

Troxx in your re-read has anyone been receptive towards or in agreement with DSM's pocket thoughts?

Towards pockets?

Not yet but I’m only on page 250.

Towards shamans being capable of doing any kind of dps remotely resembling mages?

No - none. Not one.

Page 251:

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

Lmao this is still so amazing. This guy freaked out at everyone about how Shaman does better DPS than Mage. Spent weeks going like "I provided data that Shaman does better DPS than Mage"

Then when Allyshia parsed and her Mage did better DPS, DSM changes the argument to "better DPS is meaningless" and is now pretending like he never argued that Shaman's DPS was better than mage

This is awesome to watch lmao

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

Here's a brief summary of the past 250 pages:

Attachment 18760

Awww bless her heart:

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

I won the parse! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Troxx in your re-read has anyone been receptive towards or in agreement with DSM's pocket thoughts?

The arguments against pocket characters were based on a false claim that there was a rule stating pocket characters could not be used. Even Troxx has admitted there was no rule stating pocket characters could not be used. He made it up.

This invalidates the arguments against pocket characters.

It also shows people were willing to make stuff up to try and change the debate.

[bcbrown]

DSM, I don't think you've convinced a single person over pocket characters. Who agrees with you? I believe there's a broad consensus amongst everyone who's shared an opinion on the matter that it's not relevant.

[Troxx]

Page 266 and we are back to talking’ bout our pockets …

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

A Shaman would NOT be able to rez & recover one of the Encs if they died, and the evidence betrays that you DO in fact realize this, because your post laughably tries to account for this by yet again moving goalposts. Remember, this is a discussion of a 4-man caster/priest group, which means "pocket clerics" have no place in this discussion and you bringing them up is wholly irrelevant (and disingenuous).

This really isn't hard hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

Since you haven't been in the discussion, you missed the part where you can level a pocket cleric to CH a pet if you really want that in-between pulls. You only need a level 39 cleric for CH.

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

So now our 4 man caster group has a pocket cleric to swap in between pulls to heal the pet …

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

#movethegoalposts

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

OP never said you couldn't have a pocket cleric. I am not sure why people keep thinking this is not a possible route to take. Between four people it would be trivial to level a cleric to 39. It is pretty common for people to make pocket clerics on P99.

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

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

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

Yup. He’s now clinging to the “this was general” comment after literally moving the goalposts multiple times creating very specific scenarios that he argued endlessly about. When he was proven wrong he created new scenarios. When he was proven wrong again he shifted to his current stance. It’s the funniest thing I’ve watched on these forums ever I think.

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

Keep it up boys … 300 is on the horizon!

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

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

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

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

So did DSM give up trying to prove shamans are good dps (within spitting distance of mages) in fast paced, high dps groups? Is this why we are now talking about kicking out the cleric in lieu of having a shaman … but saying “that’s ok because you can just have a pocket cleric and to log in for pet cheals, buffs and rezzes”?

Or did we just get on another stupid side tangent like when he stated warriors solo better than enchanters at lower levels (enchanters who can charm no less)?

I would have said this entire situation was unfathomable … but DSM proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that anything is possible if you do enough drugs.

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

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

For those who need a refresher of the discussion, the current data is as follows.



DSM attempted to move the goalposts by bringing a 5th "pocket" character into his "arguments" (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument) pertaining to the "Best 4 person all caster/priest group" discussion.

Of course - speaking strictly mathematically - 4=/=5, so it is unclear why DSM has attempted to bring this 5th character into the equation or why he believes doing so is not an example of moving goalposts - when it objectively is - hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

(Lol)

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

Why bring a "pocket cleric" into this?

How is not an admission of defeat right here?

[Troxx]

A walk down memory lane …

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...06923&page=270

I am proud of my first few posts on this page. I had been out on vacation and was catching up on the previous 40-60 pages

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

Please ignore PlsNoBan, Troxx, Cyxthryth, Gloomlord, Karanis, Toxigen, Ripqozko, cd288, and Chortles Snortles in this thread.

Oh … and cd288 is now added to the list of people who should be ignored as of page 271

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

The 2 goalpost shifts by DSM(5th pocket cleric & DPS breakpoint) pretty much confirms the fact that shamans are useless(they can't cheal/rez & you can hit the dps breakpoint without them. They really bring nothing to the table, this is why you don't really see enchanter/cleric/shaman trios, the enchanter/cleric knows they just don't need a shaman.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

DSM, I don't think you've convinced a single person over pocket characters. Who agrees with you? I believe there's a broad consensus amongst everyone who's shared an opinion on the matter that it's not relevant.

The disagreement comes from a false claim about pocket characters not being allowed. A consensus based on a false claim is meaningless.

The people who agree with me is the P99 player base. Plenty of people use pocket characters and mules on P99. This is seemigly forgetten in this thread.

Why do you think players will stop using pocket characters in a static group? Nothing is stopping them from using pocket characters, and many people do so already.

[Duik]

Dresses generally dont have pockets.

Whats's does one have in ones pocketses?

[Duik]

I dunno if i got 449 pages of this left in me to be honest.