Best 4 person all caster/priest group - Page 313

cyxthryth · #**3121** 09-16-2022, 08:28 AM

Quote:

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

l told you why I am doing this before. I am not going to let trolls drown out real facts with nonsense posts.

Trolls do not get to win debates this way.

I am calling you a troll because of your behavior, not because I am insulting you.

If my data is incorrect or my math is wrong, you need to show why.

Simply claiming my math or data is invalid is not an argument. It is a fallacy at best, and trolling at worst. All of the people I claim as trolls are doing the same thing of assuming my data/math is invalid for no reason.

Reposting the current state of the discussion:

DSM has repeatedly provided copy/pastes which simply do not contain any evidence or data of his Shaman performing DPS - or any other action/activity - in an environment/context/scenario that is (or would be) relevant to the discussion; hence his copy/pastes are irrelevant to this discussion.

While DSM is - seemingly - unable or unwilling to provide relevant evidence/data that supports his many claims/statements/positions (which change when he moves the goalposts & edits his posts), I have irrefutable proof of the following, which DSM has as of yet not replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute:

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM attempting 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":

Quote:

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.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM attempted to accuse others of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Quote:

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

The post history is clear. You are now including cyxthryth to try and strengthen your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum argument because you have nothing else. I find it highly amusing.

and here is my reply to DSM's attempt, in which I point out to him the irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - that DSM himself attempted - laughably - to claim (intentionally or otherise) that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum strengthened his argument when one (1) single other person seemed to agree with him:

Quote:

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

Your post would seem to betray that you are aware that you have moved goalposts, because you are now attempting (disingenuously) to validate said goalpost-moving by stating that it is objectively true that the OP's post "is general" and that this somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts" by changing the basis of the discussion (from being about 4 priests/casters, to being about 4 priests/casters plus X amount of pocket Clerics, or other pocket classes). It is not objectively true that you are "not moving the goalposts" just because you and OP both agree that the OP's post "was general" and that that somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts". That is simply you - laughably - claiming you (and OP) are correct due to argumentum ad populum hehe. This really isn't hard.

Please clarify what you mean by stating OP's post "was general"?

Again, DSM - of course - did not directly reply to me for some reason, and has continued to label me and/or my posts as "a troll"/"trolling", without providing the definition of "troll" / "trolling" that he is using (nor what he meant by stating that OP's post "was general"), and whilst providing zero evidence to support his claims of my being a troll/trolling.

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

DeathsSilkyMist · #**3122** 09-16-2022, 09:34 AM

Please ignore PlsNoBan, Troxx, Cyxthryth, Gloomlord, Karanis, Toxigen, Ripqozko, cd288, and Chortles Snortles in this thread. They are just trolling. They have accumulated over 1000 posts that are literally just memes and insults between them. They shouldn't since this isn't RnF, but they seem to enjoy being silly in this thread.

Reposting the current state of the discussion:

Thanks for the logs Allishia! It is much easier to do parsing this way. Based on the logs the Epic Pet is doing 80-90 DPS. For strong manning the argument, I will use a 90 DPS parse that also had a good number of damage shield hits. This is a mana dumping situation, not a situation where you are conserving mana between fights:

======Mage DPS Parse======

In the logs the pet is confirmed to have Burnout IV and a Muzzle.

Pet DPS Parse:

Pet Damage: 3805 in 42 seconds = 90.6 DPS

Scars of Sigil Parse:

Scars of Sigil Damage: 3150 in 42 seconds = 75 DPS

======Epic Mage DPS No Damage Shield======

3805 in 42 seconds = 90.6 DPS

3150 in 42 seconds = 75 DPS for 1225 mana in 14 seconds (no specialization bonus due to spell being Evocation) 1225 - 200 mana from meditate = 1025 mana lost in the minute.

6955 in 42 seconds = 165.6 DPS

======Shaman DPS Parse======

In the logs the pet is confirmed to have Celerity, Maniacal Strength, and Focus of Spirit.

Pet DPS Parse:

Pet Damage: 940 in 42 seconds = 22.4 DPS

Bane of Nife Damage: 150 + (214 x 6) = 1434 for 425 mana in 5 seconds

Ice Strike Damage : 675 x 4 = 2700 for 1000 mana in 28 seconds

======Shaman DPS No Damage Shield======

940 in 42 seconds = 22.4 DPS

4134 in 42 seconds = 98.4 DPS for 1425 mana - 416 mana cannibalized back (Torpor specialization bonus) in 27 seconds = 1009 mana lost in the minute.

5074 in 42 seconds = 120.8 DPS

======DPS Difference without Damage Shield======

Difference without Damage Shield = 165.6 DPS - 120.8 DPS = 44.8 DPS while both the Shaman and Mage spend 1000 mana total

======Damage Shield======

Damage Shield Parse:

======DPS Difference with Damage Shield======

Subtracting 11 from the Damage Shield number. The assumption is there will be an Enchanter in the party, which means you will always have a minimum damage shield of 11 via Feedback.

DPS added by damage shield, assuming Epic Pet is Tanking: (50 - 11) x 24 / 42 = 22.3 DPS

DPS added by damage shield on slowed mob, assuming Epic Pet is Tanking: (50 - 11) x (24 * 0.3) / 42 = 6.7 DPS

DPS added by cast damage shield, assuming Epic Pet is not Tanking: (33 - 11) x 24 / 42 = 12.5 DPS

DPS added by cast damage shield on slowed mob, assuming Epic Pet is not Tanking: (33 - 11) x (24 * 0.3) / 42 = 3.8 DPS

Difference with Damage Shield = 48.6-67.1 DPS, depending on slow/tanking situation.

======DPS Difference in the Four Man Group======

The two groups are going to be Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric/Shaman and Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric/Mage.

According to Troxx's data, the average DPS a level 47 charmed pet with Enchanter haste and a Torch was doing 86 DPS.

If two Enchanters are in the group, the DPS is 86 (Enchanter) + 86 (Enchanter) + 120.8 (Shaman) + 6.3 (Enchanter Damage Shield) = 299.1 DPS

If two Enchanters are in the group, the DPS is 86 (Enchanter) + 86 (Enchanter) + 165.6 (Mage) + 18.8 (Mage Damage Shield) = 356.4 DPS with a Shaman.

DPS Difference in the Four Man Group = 57.3 DPS

======DPS Breakpoints in the Four Man Group======

This is assuming the group is killing a mob with 8000 HP. The mob in the Mage parse had 8000 HP when you include the damage shield damage.

8000 HP / 299.1 DPS = 26.75 seconds per kill.

8000 HP / 356.4 DPS = 22.45 seconds per kill.

DPS Difference in kill speed = 4.3 seconds

It turns out both sides were right. At least Epic Mages are doing higher DPS than Troxx's data, but the extra DPS doesn't really matter when looking at the breakpoints.

For reference, Fungi King has 17750 HP according to the wiki. That means a group with a Shaman is killing him in 59.3 seconds, and a group with a mage is killing him in 49.8 seconds. That means you are saving a grand total of 9.5 seconds per Fungi King/PH kill. You would kill Fungi King (1620 seconds respawn / 9.5 second saved) = 170 times in a row to get an extra spawn. That is 85 hours continuously camping the mob.

We don't have raw log data for a focused level 60 water pet, which will be much more common. Therefore I cannot currently confirm the DPS difference between a normal Mage and an Epic Mage. Right now Troxx's data is all we have for the level 60 Water Pet, which is lower than the Epic Pet.

It is up to the reader to decide if they think 4.3 seconds per kill is worth losing all the utility a Shaman has to offer. This is if choosing an Epic Mage over a Shaman in a four man group where you are choosing between Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric/Mage or Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric/Shaman.

I do agree with OP's choice of Necromancer/Enchanter/Shaman/Mage. With this combination you have maximum access to all camps via these classes utility, while hitting the DPS threshold. You could level up a pocket cleric for easier resing and CHing if you desire, you only need to level it to 49 for 90% res and CH.

cyxthryth · #**3123** 09-16-2022, 09:59 AM

Reposting the current state of the discussion:

DSM has repeatedly provided copy/pastes which simply do not contain any evidence or data of his Shaman performing DPS - or any other action/activity - in an environment/context/scenario that is (or would be) relevant to the discussion; hence his copy/pastes are irrelevant to this discussion.

While DSM is - seemingly - unable or unwilling to provide relevant evidence/data that supports his many claims/statements/positions (which change when he moves the goalposts & edits his posts), I have irrefutable proof of the following, which DSM has as of yet not replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute:

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM attempting 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":

Quote:

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.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM attempted to accuse others of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Quote:

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

The post history is clear. You are now including cyxthryth to try and strengthen your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum argument because you have nothing else. I find it highly amusing.

and here is my reply to DSM's attempt, in which I point out to him the irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - that DSM himself attempted - laughably - to claim (intentionally or otherise) that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum strengthened his argument when one (1) single other person seemed to agree with him:

Quote:

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

Your post would seem to betray that you are aware that you have moved goalposts, because you are now attempting (disingenuously) to validate said goalpost-moving by stating that it is objectively true that the OP's post "is general" and that this somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts" by changing the basis of the discussion (from being about 4 priests/casters, to being about 4 priests/casters plus X amount of pocket Clerics, or other pocket classes). It is not objectively true that you are "not moving the goalposts" just because you and OP both agree that the OP's post "was general" and that that somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts". That is simply you - laughably - claiming you (and OP) are correct due to argumentum ad populum hehe. This really isn't hard.

Please clarify what you mean by stating OP's post "was general"?

Again, DSM - of course - did not directly reply to me for some reason, and has continued to label me and/or my posts as "a troll"/"trolling", without providing the definition of "troll" / "trolling" that he is using (nor what he meant by stating that OP's post "was general"), and whilst providing zero evidence to support his claims of my being a troll/trolling.

I am also not sure why DSM has continued to copy/paste his - irrelevant - data, after this exchange occured - which cannot be refuted & is visible and clear in the cleary visible post history - which DSM has as of yet not replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute:

Quote:

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

The reason why I am reposting the information is because the trolls are trying to hide the information.

Quote:

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

No. The content of your post seems to include a claim that "the trolls" are trying to "hide the information". The first problem is that your post would seem to indicate that you believe that information will be "hidden" if additional posts are made - that is objectively false/incorrect DSM. Even if additional posts are made after a specific post, the post history is - and will remain - clear hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now that you have been advised and/or reminded of this irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - you should not need to continue to copy/paste to make sure your posts do not get "hidden" hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am also not sure why your post(s) would seemingly indicate that you think that the particular data/information that you keep providing in your copy/pasted posts - which includes data/information of your Shaman's performance in an environment/context/scenario that is contrary to the environment/context/scenario relevant to this discussion, as has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple posters - is somehow relevant to this discussion. It is not. It is simply irrelevant for reasons explained in multiple posts by multiple posters (including in this very post).

The ball is in DSM's court if he has relevant, factual data to support his various positions/claims/"argument"(s) (which change when he moves goalposts & edits his posts) hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

PlsNoBan · #**3124** 09-16-2022, 10:56 AM

Quote:

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.

(Rest of DSM copy/paste msg redacted as a courtesy for your eyeballs)

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

plzrelax · #**3125** 09-16-2022, 11:28 AM

Skipping this page

Toxigen · #**3126** 09-16-2022, 11:43 AM

imagine rogean happening across this thread and just permabanning all of us

PlsNoBan · #**3127** 09-16-2022, 12:37 PM

I'm still waiting for VQ leadership to notice how badly one of their members is representing them here

Ripqozko · #**3128** 09-16-2022, 12:46 PM

Quote:

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

I'm still waiting for VQ leadership to notice how badly one of their members is representing them here

This is Normal to them

DeathsSilkyMist · #**3129** 09-16-2022, 12:53 PM

Quote:

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

I'm still waiting for VQ leadership to notice how badly one of their members is representing them here

I think they are noticing how poorly everybody else is acting instead.

Over 1000 insult/meme/troll posts in a non RnF thread. Yikes.

Trolling is not a winning strategy when you want to look good.

Nor is it a winning strategy for winning a debate.

cyxthryth · #**3130** 09-16-2022, 12:59 PM

Quote:

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

I think they are noticing how poorly everybody else is acting instead.

Over 1000 insult/meme/troll posts in a non RnF thread. Yikes.

Trolling is not a winning strategy when you want to look good.

Nor is it a winning strategy for winning a debate.

Quote:

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

For the sake of civil discussion, can you please provide the definition of "troll(s)" and "win" that you are using? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]