Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[bcbrown]

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

3a. Argument: Clerics have Stun Command, which is a useful spell during Charm breaks.
3b. Rebuttal: Stun Command is not required to properly handle Charm breaks. You need to show evidence as to why this is a huge benefit over Malo/Malosini on a pet for Charm breaks, for example. Shamans have quite a few tools to use when helping out with a Charm break.

I'd like to hear you restate your case for how a shaman can help out on a charm break, because I usually feel kinda useless on charm breaks when playing my shaman. Malo line, of course, but what can you actually do to give the enchanter some space to re-charm?

On the cleric, the level 5 Stun gives a couple seconds for the enchanter to react, and won't override a successful mez. The DD stuns are less useful because they can break mez, but can sometimes be helpful. Stun Command, obviously helpful.

Both shamans and clerics can root or heal. What other tricks would a shaman use? There's slows, but that makes the pet more of a hastle to get back into fighting form after re-charming. Sometimes I use Flash of Light to steal aggro, but I always worry about it landing while no one is in melee range, causing the mob to run off in a random direction.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I'd like to hear you restate your case for how a shaman can help out on a charm break, because I usually feel kinda useless on charm breaks when playing my shaman. Malo line, of course, but what can you actually do to give the enchanter some space to re-charm?

On the cleric, the level 5 Stun gives a couple seconds for the enchanter to react, and won't override a successful mez. The DD stuns are less useful because they can break mez, but can sometimes be helpful. Stun Command, obviously helpful.

Both shamans and clerics can root or heal. What other tricks would a shaman use? There's slows, but that makes the pet more of a hastle to get back into fighting form after re-charming. Sometimes I use Flash of Light to steal aggro, but I always worry about it landing while no one is in melee range, causing the mob to run off in a random direction.

Root/Slow/Blind/Heal are the tools. Most charm breaks aren't bad enough (at least from my experience) to require extra stuns from a second or third class. When you play with an experienced enough Enchanter, they are already quite good at handling the initial stuns.

On a bad break you can slow the mob and dispel it afterwards. Otherwise Root/Blind/Heal have been good enough. I don't remember having enough bad breaks to actually need to slow the mob more than a handful of times. I wouldn't consider Stun Command to be something I couldn't live without. I've grouped with quite a few Enchanters over the years, luckily most have been experienced.

Malo reduces the number of charm breaks per hour, which helps make up for the time you may lose if a bad break occurs once in a session that requires a slow/dispel.

[Crede]

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

You are either purposely straw manning my arguments, or simply not reading what I am saying. Neither of these tactics are helping your position, and make you look like a troll.

The arguments below are assuming you only have 1 slot left in the group, and are trying to determine which class is best for that remaining slot.

Here are some common arguments for a Cleric, and my rebuttals thus far:

1a. Argument: Clerics have Resurrection and Shamans do not.
1b. Myth: Pocket Clerics are a common tactic when it comes to Resurrection, which you agree with: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...78&postcount=6
1c. Fact: This is a 4 man discussion. Pocket Clerics are not relevant. Pathetic attempt to pull in a non related thread about a solo enchanter getting help with rezzes. If multiple group members were allowed, the cleric would have been included.

2a. Argument: Clerics have CH, which is a better tool for keeping Charmed Pets alive.
2b. Myth: With Torpor + Slow, Shamans can tank the mobs instead of the Charmed Pets. This removes the need to CH pets, and it allows the pets to do a bit more DPS, because they can both be behind the mob. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG1Aat1XdbI - Here is an example of this, and you can go on my youtube channel to see other examples of Shaman tanking.
2b. Fact: Quite a lot of mobs are either hard to slow, or slow immune. sebilite protector for example, if slow cannot land, the shaman will be dead in a matter of seconds. Torpor is inferior to Cheal. This thread is about best, no need to settle for an inferior heal. Safer to just cheal an 8k hp pet

3a. Argument: Clerics have Stun Command, which is a useful spell during Charm breaks.
3b. Myth: Stun Command is not required to properly handle Charm breaks. You need to show evidence as to why this is a huge benefit over Malo/Malosini on a pet for Charm breaks, for example. Shamans have quite a few tools to use when helping out with a Charm break.
3c. Fact: Nor is malo or slow required for charm breaks. Stun is the best defense against Charm breaks, this is how enchanters do it, cleric stun only supports this even more. This thread is about best, stun command can lock down both the pet & multiple other mobs at once too. It is the best arguably the defense against charm breaks, including anything the enchanter can offer, as it lasts longer than any enchanter stun. Clerics also have multiple single target slows. You'd be silly to pass this up for something like a shaman slow which no enchanter wants their pet slowed.

4a. Argument: This group of 4 players without a Warrior need at least one cleric for CH when dealing with slow immune mobs.
4b. Myth: People making this claim have yet to name a camp where they think this will be an issue. They are assuming there are camps that a group of 4 players without a Warrior could reasonably do by CHing the pet, since the mob cannot be slowed. We could test if this camp isn't doable by a Shaman, and we could debate the merits of trying to do this camp to begin with in a four man caster/priest group. Also, if you have a pocket Cleric at level 49, you will be able to swap to them for CHing one or two very specific camps.
4c. Fact: See 2b. Torpor is not needed either, and is inferior to CH. Certain mobs can out dps Torpor. CH opens up options, especially if you do want to invite a warrior to attempt some harder mobs. Ie. no downside to losing Torpor, only upside to adding Cheal.

Here are some common arguments for a Mage, and my rebuttals thus far:

5a. Argument: You cannot use solo DPS videos to mimic group DPS when trying to determine which classes are better/worse for DPS.
5b. Myth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG1Aat1XdbI this video shows you can use a solo video such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XwiGKTuu2E to mimic group DPS. This means you can get an accurate idea about what the DPS difference is between a Shaman and a Mage, to better understand what the tradeoff is between a Mage and a Shaman. Crede didn't watch the video I posted, which is why he thought I was only doing 15 DPS. With a Shaman pet and 1x Ice Strike, I am doing 30ish DPS minimum, not including the DPS boost from avataring the Charmed pets, and the DPS boost from having the Charmed pets hitting the mob from behind. This group was also not an example of a "perfect group", as the Enchanter and Necromancer were not level 60. This means there is room for improvement. I also would have been able to root/rot in HS west if the group wanted more kills per hour.
5c. Fact: DSM claimed that a shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group. 15/30 dps is not remotely close. This video is irrelevant to the discussion. DSM assumes shaman has everything. Give mage everything(epic pet) this DPS gap only gets larger.

6a. Argument: The DPS advantage a Mage can provide in a group out weights the Utility of a Shaman.
6b. Myth: DPS has diminishing returns, based on the camp you are currently doing. As as simple example, if you are camping a mob on a 5 minute timer and it takes 1 minute to kill the mob, you are getting 10 kills per hour. If you double your DPS to where you are killing the mob in 30 seconds, you are getting 11 kills per hour. While you did double your DPS, you did not double your XP gains, you only boosted them by 10%. In a group that is camping a single high priority mob, such as Fungi King, you are not getting any more kills per hour by increasing your DPS via bringing a Mage. At 200 DPS you kill him in 90 seconds. At 300 DPS you kill him in 60 seconds. Saving 30 seconds per 30 minute respawn timer would require you to camp him for 30 hours to get an extra spawn. If your group is killing a lot of trivial mobs for XP, that camp/area has a limit on how many mobs are killable per hour. You may already be at that limit with 2x Enchanters. A Shaman can also increase their DPS by root rotting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdAIheodtY This is what that would look like in Velks. The Shaman would be root rotting in one area, while the group is in another nearby area killing other spiders.
6c. Fact: DPS has diminishing returns after a certain level of DPS. DPS provides more downtime for player fatigue. A lot of things in this game have diminishing returns. Doesn’t stop people from seeking more of said diminished return. Utility has no returns after a certain level of utility. A cleric and 2 enchanters bring enough utility to render the shaman's utility useless.

Thus far, No evidence has been provided for any of these 6 arguments that dismantle my rebuttals.

The idea that I said Shamans will typically out-DPS Mages is a strawman, and thus not one of the points mentioned here. Mages will generally out-DPS a Shaman in single target scenarios and burst scenarios. Shamans can out-DPS Mages in root/rotting scenarios.

Fact: You have yet to provide evidence of shamans out-DPS mages in root/rotting scenarios. Evidence which has been requested far more than anything else in this thread

[DeathsSilkyMist]

1c. Fact: This is a 4 man discussion. Pocket Clerics are not relevant. Pathetic attempt to pull in a non related thread about a solo enchanter getting help with rezzes. If multiple group members were allowed, the cleric would have been included.

OP did not specify you cannot bring pocket Clerics. You can bring a pocket Cleric if you want to, and it is a common tactic on P99. Nobody needs to listen to your forced requirements that are simply applied to win the argument.

2b. Fact: Quite a lot of mobs are either hard to slow, or slow immune. sebilite protector for example, if slow cannot land, the shaman will be dead in a matter of seconds. Torpor is inferior to Cheal. This thread is about best, no need to settle for an inferior heal. Safer to just cheal an 8k hp pet

You can run the mobs around before you engage them to slow them. You need to show evidence that you have a Cleric/Enchanter duo doing this type of mob faster than a Shaman/Enchanter duo.

3c. Fact: Nor is malo or slow required for charm breaks. Stun is the best defense against Charm breaks, this is how enchanters do it, cleric stun only supports this even more. This thread is about best, stun command can lock down both the pet & multiple other mobs at once too. It is the best arguably the defense against charm breaks, including anything the enchanter can offer, as it lasts longer than any enchanter stun. Clerics also have multiple single target slows. You'd be silly to pass this up for something like a shaman slow which no enchanter wants their pet slowed.

You need to show some evidence for this instead of just assuming it's better in the long run.

4c. Fact: See 2b. Torpor is not needed either, and is inferior to CH. Certain mobs can out dps Torpor. CH opens up options, especially if you do want to invite a warrior to attempt some harder mobs. Ie. no downside to losing Torpor, only upside to adding Cheal.

Please name some mobs that out-DPS Torpor and a group of 4 people would want to kill. Torpor also opens up options where using charmed pets is more difficult, like WW Dragons.

5c. Fact: DSM claimed that a shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group.

Please quote me where I said any of this. The entire purpose of comparing a Mage's DPS to a Shaman's DPS is to get an idea of what the gap is. This makes it easier to determine the what the DPS loss is vs. the utility gained.

6c. Fact: DPS has diminishing returns after a certain level of DPS. DPS provides more downtime for player fatigue. Utility has no returns after a certain level of utility. A cleric and 2 enchanters bring enough utility to render the shaman's utility useless.

Enchanters are also a high fatigue class, this really isn't a good argument. If you want easier to play classes, you wouldn't be suggesting Enchanters.

Fact: You have yet to provide evidence of shamans out-DPS mages in root/rotting scenarios

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdAIheodtY - Here is an example of root rotting in Velks. You can provide a video of a Mage killing the same mobs, and we can see who wins!

[cyxthryth]

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

Here are some common arguments for a Cleric, and my rebuttals thus far:

1a. Argument: Clerics have Resurrection and Shamans do not.
1b. Rebuttal: Pocket Clerics are a common tactic when it comes to Resurrection, which you agree with: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...78&postcount=6

1. Your solution for the specific scenario of needing Cleric skills is to bring Cleric - got it. That is not a particularly strong argument in favor of taking a Shaman over a Cleric. In fact isn't an argument for the Shaman at all. The objective fact is that Clerics are able to resurrect and Shaman's class toolkit doesn't have an equivalent/comparable/better solution. It's really that simple in this particular case / when concerning res'ing. Your "rebuttal" does not change the objective fact.

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

2a. Argument: Clerics have CH, which is a better tool for keeping Charmed Pets alive.
2b. Rebuttal: With Torpor + Slow, Shamans can tank the mobs instead of the Charmed Pets. This removes the need to CH pets, and it allows the pets to do a bit more DPS, because they can both be behind the mob. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG1Aat1XdbI - Here is an example of this, and you can go on my youtube channel to see other examples of Shaman tanking.

2. You have proposed Shaman as an OPTION in the above quote, and obviously that implies that you believe Shaman is a comparable, equivalent, or better option than Cleric, but your post does NOT contain ANY evidence of a Shaman actually performing comparably, equivalently or better than a Cleric. The irrefutable fact is that you are merely sharing your opinion, just like the other poster(s) who you are claiming have made this claim. Provide evidence that Shaman is comparable or better than Cleric if you want to claim Shaman is comparable, equivalent or better, otherwise, if you are merely sharing opinions and disagree with others' opinions, you simply need to accept the fact that you have simply reached an impasse as your opinion is no more valuable than any other poster's, and you certainly have no authority with which to claim your opinion is "the correct opinion" over other poster's and demand others provide some undefined "evidence" while you yourself have provided no such thing to support the claims you've made.

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

3a. Argument: Clerics have Stun Command, which is a useful spell during Charm breaks.
3b. Rebuttal: Stun Command is not required to properly handle Charm breaks. You need to show evidence as to why this is a huge benefit over Malo/Malosini on a pet for Charm breaks, for example. Shamans have quite a few tools to use when helping out with a Charm break.

3. Stun command not being required does NOT refute the objective fact that "Clerics have Stun Command, which is a useful spell during Charm breaks" which is what you claim to be "rebutting". Yes, Charm breaks can be handled without Stun Command, but it is still a useful spell and your "rebuttal" simply does not change that objective fact. If you want to make the objective claim a Shaman's tools make them comparable, equivalent or better than Cleric then YOU need to show evidence to support that claim. Otherwise, you are once again simply sharing your opinion that Shaman's tools (Malo, Slow) are comparable, equivalent or better. But that's all you provided - your opinion - no "evidence" - and nobody owes any to you for their opinion either.

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

4a. Argument: This group of 4 players without a Warrior need at least one cleric for CH when dealing with slow immune mobs.
4b. Rebuttal: People making this claim have yet to name a camp where they think this will be an issue. They are assuming there are camps that a group of 4 players without a Warrior could reasonably do by CHing the pet, since the mob cannot be slowed. We could test if this camp isn't doable by a Shaman, and we could debate the merits of trying to do this camp to begin with in a four man caster/priest group. Also, if you have a pocket Cleric at level 49, you will be able to swap to them for CHing one or two very specific camps.

4. Where did someone claim CH is "needed"? I'll admit I may have missed such a statement somewhere in the many posts in this thread but I highly doubt anybody made that claim. Show evidence to support your claim otherwise I call BS and provide this as irrefutable evidence that you are using - yet ANOTHER - straw man argument.

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

Here are some common arguments for a Mage, and my rebuttals thus far:

5a. Argument: You cannot use solo DPS videos to mimic group DPS when trying to determine which classes are better/worse for DPS.
5b. Rebuttal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG1Aat1XdbI this video shows you can use a solo video such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XwiGKTuu2E to mimic group DPS. This means you can get an accurate idea about what the DPS difference is between a Shaman and a Mage, to better understand what the tradeoff is between a Mage and a Shaman. Crede didn't watch the video I posted, which is why he thought I was only doing 15 DPS. With a Shaman pet and 1x Ice Strike, I am doing 30ish DPS minimum, not including the DPS boost from avataring the Charmed pets, and the DPS boost from having the Charmed pets hitting the mob from behind. This group was also not an example of a "perfect group", as the Enchanter and Necromancer were not level 60. This means there is room for improvement. I also would have been able to root/rot in HS west if the group wanted more kills per hour.

5. Nice Straw Man. The "argument" is that a video of your Shaman root rotting mobs SOLO or a video in which you tank & heal & your group wipes multiple times (lol) and you DO NOT Root Rot multiple mobs parallel to the group, are NOT evidence of your Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to a group. This is simply an objective fact, and one that your "rebuttal" does not change. It's really that simple.

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

6a. & 6b. A Shaman can also increase their DPS by root rotting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdAIheodtY This is what that would look like in Velks. The Shaman would be root rotting in one area, while the group is in another nearby area killing other spiders.

You have attempted to make the objective claim that Shaman can Root Rot multiple mobs parallel to a group and thereby increase DPS (providing benefeit, and/or more benefit than a non Epic Mage) but in nearly a year you have provided no evidence of your (or any) Shaman doing so - even once - let alone that it is a common or frequent occurrence. Tens? Hundreds? of posts claiming it, no evidence. This ultimately calls into question whether you are objectively correct or not (probably not), but you don't care about that, right? [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.]

Thus far, No evidence has been provided for any of these 6 arguments that dismantle my rebuttals.

You have provided no evidence which would demonstrate that "your rebuttals" have dismantled the claims you believe you are arguing against. If you believe you have, that is simply your opinion - which is likely objectively wrong/incorrect. But you don't care about that, right?

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

The idea that I said Shamans will typically out-DPS Mages is a strawman, and thus not one of the points mentioned here. Mages will generally out-DPS a Shaman in single target scenarios and burst scenarios. Shamans can out-DPS Mages in root/rotting scenarios.

You've presented evidence of your Shaman solo Root Rotting, but as has been pointed out to you possibly hundreds of times by now, you have provided no evidence of your Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group (thereby providing a benefit, much less more benefit than a non Epic Mage) - and it's been nearly a year.

[Ripqozko]

Kittens be trolling like crazy these days

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You have provided no evidence which would demonstrate that "your rebuttals" have dismantled the claims you believe you are arguing against. If you believe you have, that is simply your opinion - which is likely objectively wrong/incorrect. But you don't care about that, right?

You can keep making posts that basically say this over and over, but it doesn't change the fact that you have no evidence. I have videos, you do not. I am sorry, but it is not a valid tactic to simply keep claiming all evidence is invalid, and you do not need to provide any of your own.

[cyxthryth]

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

You can keep making posts that basically say this over and over, but it doesn't change the fact that you have no evidence. I have videos, you do not. I am sorry, but it is not a valid tactic to simply keep claiming all evidence is invalid, and you do not need to provide any of your own.

You can attempt to ignore my posts and the objective facts I've stated, but that does not and will not change the objective facts.

I could also link irrelevant videos that do not contain a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group just like you did, and just like when you did it, it would simply not be evidence of a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group.

The irrefutable proof that your evidence has been irrelevant is your evidence; everybody can see what it is, and more importantly what it is not: it is simply not evidence of a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group. It is as simple as that, and I am not sure why you seem to have such a hard time with this.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You can attempt to ignore my posts and the objective facts I've stated, but that does not and will not change the objective facts.

I could also link irrelevant videos that do not contain a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group just like you did, and just like when you did it, it would simply not be evidence of a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group.

The irrefutable proof that your evidence has been irrelevant is your evidence; everybody can see what it is, and more importantly what it is not: it is simply not evidence of a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group. It is as simple as that, and I am not sure why you seem to have such a hard time with this.

It's up to you to show that root rotting with a group vs. solo changes at all. You are making that claim, not me. Mobs do not change their stats based on your grouping status, so I am not sure why you think it would look any different. My video shows that you can safely root/rot, which is the important part of the equation.

[cyxthryth]

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

It's up to you to show that root rotting with a group vs. solo changes at all. You are making that claim, not me. Mobs do not change their stats based on your grouping status, so I am not sure why you think it would look any different. My video shows that you can safely root/rot, which is the important part of the equation.

No, nowhere have I claimed that root rotting with a group vs. solo 'will change", and if you wish to claim I have you simply need to provide evidence that I made that claim. You will not find such evidence, because this is simply an example of a DSM Straw Man argument.

I'm simply asking for you to prove what you have tens? hundreds? of times objectively claimed - that a Shaman can improve a group's DPS and thereby provide a benefit comparable to or better than a non Epic Mage by Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group - which, for almost a year now, you have provided no proof of. The burden of proof to justify/prove your objective claim has been solely on you - for almost a year, and I have told you this plenty of times by now. Again, this is very simple and I am not sure why you have such a hard time understanding.

To help you picture it in your mind in case this benefits your understanding:
Imagine Root Rotting solo is an Apple
Imagine Root Rotting parallel to a group is an Orange
What differentiates these two fruits is that one is simply solo, the other is simply in a group.
Obviously, is not helpful to submit an Apple and present it as an Orange, as to do so would simply be objectively false/incorrect/wrong. (But you don't care about that, right? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.])