Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[cyxthryth]

For anyone looking for a TL;DR of pages 1 - 464, here is a recap/summary:

DSM simply has not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute the following:

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 addressed/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":

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:

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.

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 otherwise) that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum strengthened his argument when one (1) single other person seemed to agree with him:

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

I think since my post is general, then there was never a goalpost to begin with. Best is whatever you personally think best means.

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

Having multiple conversations simultaneously is not moving goalposts. Talking about pocket clerics when OP didn't specify that was outside of the scope is not moving goalposts. OP's question was general, and he has said as much.

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"?

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM has claimed:

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

Assuming your group plays correctly, you will DPS the same way every time, the same as if you were solo.

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

I am very confident it won't change in a group scenario.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM has also claimed:

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

in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data

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

Once you add in outside variables, that changes the DPS equation NOT because of what the class can do, but because of what other players are doing.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM's post in which he claimed Troxx's numbers were way different from Allishia's:

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

Also Allishia's numbers were way different from yours

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM's post to Allishia when they provided their initial data in which he claimed Allishia's numbers were the same as Troxx's:

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

Thanks for the data! I'll get the logs from you a bit later today. Just looking at it here, the numbers are the same as Troxx's data.

As I have repeatedly stated - it is not always clear to other posters what particular position/claim/"argument"(s) DSM is defending at any given time due to how often he has moved the goalposts & edited his posts.

For these reasons - which I have repeatedly stated - I am not sure which particular/specific belief/claim/stance/"argument"(s) that DSM is currently holding/defending/"arguing"; it would be helpful if he could elaborate/clarify/specify for the sake of civil discussion.

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 simply has as of yet not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute

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.

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.

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.

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).

Even though DSM ultimately - without addressing/replying to/acknowledging/defending/challenging/attempting to refute the above - seemingly conceded by stating the following on 9/18/2022:

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

This will be my last post

DSM has recently returned to this thread & has proceeded posting additional replies - to posters other than myself. This would seemingly indicate DSM has chosen to return to this civil discussion. DSM - of course - still has not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute the aforementioned above quotes, and as is clearly visible in the post history DSM 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.

The ball is - still - in DSM's court if he has relevant, factual data to support his various positions/claims/"argument"(s) - and is willing to clarify which particular position/claim/argument(s) he currently holds/"argues", as they change when he moves goalposts or edits his posts - and/or if he would like to provide the definitions he is using for "troll"/"trolling", "nonsense", "silly", "vitriol", "new" and "win" for the sake of civil discussin hehe.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Oh Cyxthryth is back. Another account exclusively made to troll. 400/411 of their posts are in this thread alone for reference.

They just copy paste the same nonsense over and over again. You can look at the post history and see the same post over and over. It's all easy to disprove too if you cared to look through the thread. I am not sure why he bothers spamming this thread.

[Gloomlord]

Yep, this account is made to troll alright!

Conveniently ignore I have a 59 Bard, 57 Paladin and a 54 Necromancer. This account was made exclusively to troll!

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

[cyxthryth]

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

Oh Cyxthryth is back. Another account exclusively made to troll.

They just copy paste the same nonsense over and over again. You can look at the post history and see the same post over and over. It's all easy to disprove too if you cared to look through the thread. I am not sure why he bothers spamming this thread.

I never "left" and unlike yourself I never made a post in this thread proclaiming "this will be my last post" (hi DSM lol). My account was not exclusively made to troll.

Anyway (since I'm clearly not a troll and clearly do not exclusively copy/paste, and on the off chance you actually reply as you've - VERY selectively - done with a VERY select few of my previous replies)...

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

I'd still swap the cleric for a Shaman in this kind of group.

The past 464 pages could possibly suggest/be interpreted to indicate (particularly by someone who merely skims instead of reading all of the past 464 pages) that you'd likely say something similar regardless of what other classes and content are being discussed. Is there any particular group size & content combination which you WOULDN'T include Shaman among the "best" classes and therefore choose Shaman as one of the classes for that group/content?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Yep, this account is made to troll alright!

Conveniently ignore I have a 59 Bard, 57 Paladin and a 54 Necromancer. This account was made exclusively to troll!

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=241

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

You're the only one I'm "harassing", you manipulative sociopath.

You admitted it, and the evidence is over 80% of your entire post history is just insulting and trolling. Anybody can check your post history, they don't need to take my word for it.

What characters you play in game is honestly irrelevant to your actions here.

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

My account was not exclusively made to troll.

400/412 nonsensical posts in this thread exclusively says otherwise. You cannot hide your post history.

Unfortunately for you, your trolling was just too obvious. It is why most posters ignored the vast majority of your posts, even other trolls. I am just replying to you in this instance so people get context for your account. You will probably reply in this thread again, but there isn't much point in engaging with you further. You will continue to post the same nonsense over and over. It is the pattern which everybody can see if they check the history of this thread.

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

Is there any particular group size & content combination which you WOULDN'T include Shaman among the "best" classes and therefore choose Shaman as one of the classes for that group/content?

Sure. Any fight where the mob cannot be slowed is generally not a very good fight for a Shaman. Xenovorash comes to mind just off the top of my head.

Sometimes groups will still take a Shaman in these cases because Torpor is a cheap and good spot heal, and spot heals are good to mitigate potential gaps in a CH chain. The Shaman can Cannibalize too, so they can cast more spot heals while Torpor is ticking.

For single group content without a Warrior (which is what this thread is about), very few mobs that people want to kill are immune to slow, or deal enough damage to outpace Torpor. That is why Shaman is a top pick in this thread. The content fits well with a Shaman's strengths.

[Gloomlord]

You're just proving my point, you deluded fool.

[cyxthryth]

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

400/412 nonsensical posts in this thread exclusively says otherwise. You cannot hide your post history.

Unfortunately for you, your trolling was just too obvious. It is why most posters ignored the vast majority of your posts, even other trolls. I am just replying to you in this instance so people get context for your account.

Would you be willing to provide the definitions of "nonsensical" and "trolling" that you are ascribing to my posts in this thread, for the sake of civil discussion? To my knowledge, I have not indicated that I am interested in hiding my post history, which I am fully aware is not able to be hidden - so I am not sure why your post would seem to indicate that you believe I would be interested in doing and/or that I am attempting to do anything of the sort (strawman much?). Regarding whether others have "ignored" the vast majority of my posts: others already replied to inform you (specifically) that they were not ignoring me, my posts were simply largely directed solely at yourself. I have interacted with others, and I/my posts have been the subject of other posters' replies. This is all clear and visible in the clearly visible post history.

The objective fact of the matter is: I could simply claim that your thousands of posts in this thread are "nonsensical" and (obvious) "trolling" and we would simply be at an impasse. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Troxx]

Good question - they aren't exactly a melee class if you play them appropriately (excluding epic for mod and proc).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Good question - they aren't exactly a melee class if you play them appropriately (excluding epic for mod and proc).

If you are referring to Bards, I agree they are in a grey area in terms of their toolkit.

It would probably be up to OP to decide what they meant by "caster". I think everybody here assumes OP meant cloth caster (Wizard, Enchanter, Magician, Necromancer). Based on OP's few replies, that seems to be the case. Priest is obviously Shaman/Druid/Cleric.

[Troxx]

Bards, played correctly, are super powerful but for this particular group I might argue are less efficient than necro/mage ... but more efficient/effective than shaman. From a dynamic standpoint, they meet the needs of 3 otherwise capable and (as a group) independent set of toons way more than a shaman could. They aren't a "caster class" though so I excluded the class from my thought process. They don't add much to kill power but they do add a layer of "other" to the group and in extra ways beyond what a shaman can.

Played poorly ... a bard is a waste in most all cases. Some 55 and above don't even appreciate the value of keeping cantana (string mod or not) up as much as possible. Bad bard are bad news and fuck it .... no.

Disclaimer: Troxx (my namesake) was my first to level 60 and is a bard so I have bias. More often than not when you have a person playing bard they don't know ass from elbow. They can (and should be) the WD-40 of eq. Not powerful on their own but they grease up the gears and make everything O SO MUCH easier when played perfectly.

Disclaimer 2: My second to 60 was my shaman.

In this kind of group they offer:
-mana pulse once level appropriate
-up to 3x mana pulse + group mana regen once level appropriate
-potential hp regen/tick to all in group > 50/tick to all (not pets) in group once level appropriate (1/6 torpor but to everyone) along with mana regen
-pulling potential or primary pulling (lull included)
-CC assistance
-Instant snare/slow on incoming
-dot chants (3sec cast each so loading them all up is possible)

But if the group can handle all the CC and doesn't need or wouldn't benefit from the extra's the bard brings - I don't think they would fit in as well as others. If the bard really knows what they are doing and the others are relative mouth-breathers, however, the bard may add a whole heck of a lot.