My fellow Illusionists

[TheTrueHel]

Alrighty, I've never been much for posting or reading forums, but since i'm still fairly new i wanted to see other tactics my fellow illusion brothers have been using... Only to find that over 80% of the people here believe we are DPS!  I've been playing for only a month...and i can't understand why people complain about our classes damage or soloability. So what...we don't have alot of damage...if you want damage shouldn't you be a wizard or warlock?  And if you want to solo...play WOW. The way i understood EQ2 to be was to be a group game.  So why are we complaining about our damage when we should be saying something about are crappy stuns or broken adept alacrity with no changes.  I did not play an illusionist class to be a dps, I played it to be crowd control, now I fear I see so many people complaining about our damage that the class will go the total opposite direction it was ment to be. Am i the only person here he thinks like this?! - Frustrated lvl 29 illusionist -Helix of the High Keep server. <div></div>

[Leostri]

You kind of are, and you kind of are not the only one. We want to be great at crowd control. We want to be able to mez mobs and be helpful. But while we can mez them, it rarely makes a difference. What we want is to be valuable to groups, and since crowd control isn't an option, and just buffing is extremely lame we need something else. Hopefully crowd control will be important in the future, but until then we need dps.

[Oghi]

<P>I'll be gentle.</P> <P>"The way [you] understood it" is incorrect.  I define "incorrect" as 'not in keeping with the oft-stated design goals of EQ2.'  EQ2 is quite different from EQ1, so I'll repeat some of those design goals here.  None of these are my spin, my opinion, or the way I "understand" things.  They are summaries of clear statements Devs have made since early beta:</P> <P>1) This game has four archetypes.  Each class within an archetype must be able to fulfill the primary role of that archetype.  E.g., all fighters must be able to tank, all priests must be able to heal</P> <P>2) At no point should any particular class be required -- a group with a member of each archetype should do well against all level-appropriate content</P> <P>3) Mages are a DPS-based archetype.  That is the primary role of the mage archetype.  Utility is secondary</P> <P>4) Soloing (and duo-ing) is meant to be a viable way to reach the level cap and get reasonably good gear for all classes.  No classes are "solo" classes, and no classes are "group" classes</P> <P> </P> <P>The fact that "you [don't] play an illusionist to be a dps", but prefer crowd control, is going to leave you disappointed at later levels.  Here is why:</P> <P>1) Crowd control is required for a very small portion of the game at upper levels.  Again, no particular class is to be required for a good group.  Content in EQ2 is not designed to require mezzing.</P> <P>2) For most groups, in most places, the most effective way to handle crowds is simply to kill them.  Tanks are far more able to absorb damage and hold aggro than were their EQ1 counterparts, and healers are generally quite up to the task.  In the 40+ game, if you're mezzing because you love "crowd control," the odds are pretty good that you are slowing your group down.  Smart group leaders will get pretty tired of "Hey, don't hit that -- I mezzed it!" when they simply want to get the monsters killed and move on</P> <P>3) The common wisdom now is that EQ2 really has 3 roles -- Tanking, Healing and DPS.  That is what you require for almost all content.  Utility functions, like popping boxes or mezzing adds, can come in handy.  In some few cases, such utility functions can be *extremely* useful.  But there is very, very little in this game that a good group can't do without you mezzing.</P> <DIV>In short, if you anticipate EQ2 enchanters having a role substantially similar to that of their EQ1 counterparts, you will be disappointed.  The game is specifically designed *not* to require the old holy trinity of warrior-cleric-chanter.  A well-played enchanter can certainly be a great boon to a group, and fun to play -- but it will very rarely be necessary to have one.  In the cases where it is necessary to have one, it's generally because of the Breeze line, not our mezzes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In short, if you don't want to DPS, I hope you're thrilled about being a buff bot.  Because THAT, not crowd control, is currently our most important contribution for most EQ2 content.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>/rant</DIV>

[Dainger]

<P>ummm.... everything Oghier said!</P> <P>  One thing i've been thinking about -- you know how the new "combat changes" are being implemented in LU #7, and one of the things w/ the combat changes is it seems they're adjusting mitigation and avoidance across the board.  I'm curious that if these attributes end up being lowered enough for the fighter archetype, and they end up not being able to mitigate or avoid DPS as much as they can now - CC may become a slightly more required role in EQ2 and we may recognize a greater demand for our kind in groups.</P> <P>  Anyways....just thinking about what's upcoming -- and i'm hoping that tanks loose a bit of their mitigation and avoidance, cause i'll see it as a plus for enchanters.  If nothing changes, oh well.</P>

[Ghouli]

<P>Hi,</P> <P>I am a Coercer and the main problem with crowd control is if it ever does become essential that other classes who rely on AoE abilities are going to be calling for blood, so there needs to be a balance between the 2.  This will be very hard to actually implement so both Classes  (Coercer and Illusionist) need to rely on utility and DPS to be viable in a group.  CC is handy but at high level as previously mentioned is in most cases is a hinderance. </P>

[Dainger]

<DIV>  Just one more thing to add to my post....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  I do not believe the "encounter system" in EQ2 is built for CC (no social aggro - yes there is some, but is it intended?  on top of linked encounters - which is very beneficial for any AoE class and i agree w/).  The one thing i want to get across is that; If the "fighter subclass" is not able to mitigate as much DPS as currently allocated, enchanter's across the board will become more and more desired for "exp groups."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  In otherwords - if SoE takes steps in this direction i would happily give up any thoughts of DPS improvements.  As from my parsings they seem to be pretty well the same as Vurin's.  So... Fighter's mitigate less = enchanter's CC more desired, otherwise we need more DPS.  And no matter what we need to have our root lines looked at.  Just in this last update Sorcerors had their roots improved, when as Oghier stated before illusionist's are much more susceptible to roots breaking than sorcerors, as we deal w/ damager per tick DPS while Sorcerors deal w/ straight up nukes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  So, if tanks mitigate/avoid less = enchanter's more desired.....yet that does not help our solo'ing capabilty.  Stronger and faster casting roots greatly improves our solo capabilities regardless of different DPS than we have now.</DIV>

[Encantador]

<DIV>Just in case you think the grass may be greener .... Oghier's summation is valid for all enchanters .... i.e. not just for illusionists but also coercers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>...........................</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The changes for meleeing are interesting and deserve a thread to themselves. For example, I believe the people who complain the loss of parry means mages will be worse at surviving aggro cannot be right. Mages already die very quickly, making defense noticeably worse would make them unplayable.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oghier seems to feel reducing the mitigation of tanks will increase the need for enchanters. Here I disagree. As I see it, it will increase the need for healers. On the other hand if the aggro generated for heals is increased and the ability of priests to tank is reduced he may be right. As I just said this is worth a thread to itself. It is to complicated to work through all the consequences of the changes and how they might be fixed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[TheTrueHel]

<DIV>Alright...seeing your point but also I pretty much play with a set group of people in know IRL a bezerker, templar, and warlock.  They were already lvl 31 when i joined but said they'd wait for me to meet there lvl.  Even though i'm lvl 29 and their now 32 they tell me they notice how much easier and faster combat moves with me in the group.  I mean, they would easily notice since they are used to the rate the went at before.  I'm not saying the illusionist class is needed in every situation, but i do mez in alot of situations and 95% of the groups i've played in, want it.  Except for the people which have no clue what mezzing is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Still, this is one question i have, so devs said that:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3) Mages are a DPS-based archetype.  That is the primary role of the mage archetype.  Utility is secondary</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So basically this game has 4 classes to play and by choosing a different subclass all you should get is different pretty pictures to see...and maybe a few moves that wouldn't really matter if you had them or not?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Plus, i've never played EQ1, so i have no clue how all that transfers over to EQ2.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oh and plus...I didn't become an illusionist to become a buffbot, but i didn't become one to become a DPS either.....</DIV><p>Message Edited by TheTrueHelix on <span class=date_text>04-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:32 AM</span>

[Bubbaq]

Its sad to see a wizard nuke for 600 plus and i cant even nuke for 200 :/. Utility doesnt make up for the other 400 IMO

[Oneira]

<div></div><div></div>I, like the thread starter, decided to play a chanter because I didn't want the stock root them, nuke them, repeat.  I wanted a mage I could be creative with, doing all sorts of different spell combinations to try and be effective both in a group and solo.  With some reservations, my illusionist has not disappointed. If you are right Oghier, that pow regen is our reason for being as far as everyone else is concerned, then the illusionist class is effectively irrelevant and will be played only by aficionados like you and me.   I cannot disagree with you, but then I can't agree either because the "4 archetype" system often times does not happen in real game life.  Yes, a party of 1 Guardian or Zerker tank,  2 healers, 1 a templar preferably and the other a shaman or druid, and 3 DPSers, 1 of whom should be a scout class for Evac, the other 2 who should probably be wizs or warlocks is the so-called perfect group.  Who wants an illusionist as a replacement for one of those 6?  Not I.  But 90% of the groups out there are (I think), not such killing machines.  1 less healer means the tank can get overwhelmed at times.  An illusionist can use his mezzes to help out.  Yes I know, AOEs will mess that up.  But even if it's only for a short while, the mezz still helps.  Believe me, I've saved a few tanks in my time that way with all the AOEs still going off.  A group without wizs or warlocks or assassins, and there are plenty such groups, just don't generate the dps.  An illusionist can help a lot there too.  Those combats take longer.  Pow gets sucked up.  Casters need to be silenced, at least for a little while. A group w/ a main tank who isn't a walking suit of uber-mitigation . . .the same.  Monks for instance can be extremely effective as tanks if the group is right.  If they're getting pounded from all sides where their deflection isn't as effective, then its trouble.  An illusionist can be their best friend. So what I guess i'm saying is, model groups based on the 4 archetypes .  . me Mr. Walking Suit of Mitigation me tank, you heal, you nuke, you whack and evac . . .ok maybe they don't need us.  But most groups don't fit that bill.  Call it the rule of asymmetry.  And where asymmetry rules, illusionists can use their array of buffs, mezzes, silences, <font color="#ccff00">roots</font> and . . .god yes. . . impressive *cough* DOT and DPS spells to make a risky party into a very effective one. <font color="#ccff33">this assumes that they will actually fix our bloody roots so that they don't break every other time!</font> <div></div><p>Message Edited by Oneira on <span class="date_text">04-15-2005</span> <span class="time_text">08:35 AM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Oneira on <span class=date_text>04-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:38 AM</span>

[Oghi]

<P>Truehelix,</P> <P>Sorry for assuming you'd played EQ1.  A lot of EQ2's design is based around mistakes they do not want to repeat.  Here are some of those issues:</P> <P>- EQ1 had a ton of classes, but any tough encounter required the group contain a Warrior, a Cleric and an Enchanter.  All the rogues, mages, wizards, rangers, beastlords, necros, etc would compete for the final 3 slots.  This was known as the "Holy Trinity," and it was a widely criticised aspect of EQ1</P> <P>-The holy trinity was required because all encounters boil down to three factors: 1) The tank's ability to hold aggro, 2) The tank's ability to avoid or mitigate damage, 3) The healer's ability to keep the tank alive.  In EQ1, tanks took more damage than in EQ2, and they had somewhat less ability to hold aggro than in EQ2.  This led to the requirement for crowd control on most encounters of an appropriate level range.  Without an enchanter, the tank's ability to hold aggro or absorb damage would be overwhelmed by an add</P> <P>When they put together EQ2, the designers wanted this to change.  They chose the archetype system over "Holy Trinity + The Unwashed Masses".  They did so because, frankly, those masses were sick of constantly looking for groups, or having to wait until the warrior, cleric or enchanter they knew logged in.  Thus, we have the archetype system, in which groups require only one member of each archetype, rather than specific classes.</P> <P>The archetype system works fairly well for its intended purpose.  You'd be perfectly happy to do most hunts in EQ2 with a paladin as a tank and a druid as main healer.  In EQ1, that would be pretty dicey, unless folks were doing things that were frankly easy for their level and gear.   However, there are two issues with the current archetype system:</P> <P>- There are four archetypes, but only three roles (Tanking, Healing and DPS).  The two DPS archetypes (mages and scouts) find that, not only do they compete with each other, but they also compete with other tanks and some priests.  Berserkers, monks and furies can all handily outdamage all enchanters and most scouts.</P> <P>-Some classes fit their archetype role poorly.  Enchanters are the most glaring example of this, as we are in the lower ranks of *all* classes when it comes to our archetype's primary role, DPS.  Brawlers also have some trouble with their archetypical 'tank' role, as guardians are so far better at mitigating damage, avoiding damage, and at holding aggro than their monk and bruiser cousins.</P> <P>In any case, your criticism that "there are only four classes, just with different flavors?" is a fair description of the archetype system.  It's not true yet -- but that is SOE's goal, and that is where they are heading.  I believe it's a very solid design foundation.  It should work very well when finished.  They just have to finish it <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  And all the people who chose monks because they thought that a DPS class, or who picked enchanters because they thought crowd control would be their main task, will simply have to adjust a bit.</P>

[Oghi]

<P>Oneira,</P> <P>You make a good point.  Allow me to summarise it as this:  Enchanters are a flexible mage class, and their abilities allow otherwise flawed groups to succeed.  I agree with you that, in a group of four people, and only one healer, an enchanter can save everyone's bacon with a mezz (or power drains and stifles).  In a group which contains no real DPS subclasses, we can certainly help with haste spells on everyone and going all-out with our own damage spells.  And you are 100% correct in that we help groups survive the long combats they will experience if no warlocks or wizards could be found.  We're darn good at mana regeneration and at saving the healer's own mana.</P> <P>However, you know what would fix those flawed groups even better than an enchanter?  The 'missing' classes.  I *know* I can substitute for a second healer -- but I also know the group would do far better to find a druid or shaman, who will be able to heal, take damage if needed, and to deal out far more damage than do we (we can at least outdamage most templars and inquisitors, most times).  I also know I can do some damage, if there's no warlock, wizard, or predator LFG.  But I also know that the group would generally be far better off if they *could* find someone whose top nukes didn't top out at 300-odd damage.</P> <P>I'm not saying  "enchanters are worthless!" or "we have an unplayable class!"  That would be silly.  I play my own enchanter quite a bit, and groups often express happiness at what I can bring to help (chiefly, "Oh, good!  Now we'll never run out of mana!").  In some areas, we're critical.  Heck, I get three requests a week to do the Heart of Fear ring event, as enchanters are so key for the final wave there, and there are so few 40+ ones on Antonia Bayle.  But in the 95% of the content that isn't the Heart of Fear ring event, or similar encounters, we're not well-suited to our archetype's role.  Not yet, anyway.</P> <P>I do have faith SOE will fix this.  They have been pretty hardnosed about sticking to their design goals.  I'm quite disappointed that it's taking so long -- but perhaps my priority list is a bit different from theirs, based on the fact that I rarely see the raid encounters they are currently balancing, but I see the enchanter issues pretty much every day.</P>

[Oneira]

Oghier, I'm sure you're right.  You know more about this game than I do.  Yet I wonder about your conclusion, and the key word might be "foundation" here.  Ok, SOE is going with 4 basic archetypes and 3 basic roles.  I can buy that.  But the foundation doesn't have to be inflexible.  I haven't checked the parsing lately, but even though a monk/bruiser can tank, their DPS is pretty decent, meaning they can fill the slot of DPS support.  They ain't no wizard mind you, but they can hold their own.  THis you yourself mentioned. Must chanters become more DPS oriented therefore and less crowd control?  It won't work.  The game already has that.  Chanters will never be able to compete with wizs and warlocks for DPS, nor even Summoners I imagine.  So why make them?  If that is SOE's logic, it doesn't make sense.  The irrelevance of chanters as CC'ers would be true if tanks can pretty much hold aggro AND mitigate damage enough so that only the healer matters.  It doesn't take much to change either one of those, especially the latter.  <div></div>

[Oghi]

<P>I don't think enchanters can become more CC oriented, not within the current structure of the game.  For that to happen, a large number of encounters would have to be rebalanced, so that crowd control was needed to do them at an appropriate level.  This could certainly be accomplished by changing any variable in the tank classes' ability to take damage and hold aggro, or in the healer classes' ability to remove damage.  In fact, Dainger hopes that will be a result of the current changes on Test.</P> <P>I believe that's extremely unlikely.  If CC were needed to do most encounters (again, while they are still at an appropriate level-range for the group -- you don't bother balancing level 40 groups hunting in Varsoon), then enchanters would be needed for most encounters.  We're the only ones who are really good at it.   There are some other classes who get mezzes, but nobody is going to do a CC-required encounter with a troubador or swashbuckler as their mezzer (not more than once!).  If enchanters became necessary for most groups to succeed at most content, we would be the only class in the game most groups were required to have.  While all 70 (or so) of us might be happy, the other 54823919 players might react less favorably.</P> <P>SOE *could* choose to make the other mage classes better at CC, and then rebalance the game to require more of it.  But that frankly sounds like a lot more work than just jacking up our DoT's and nukes 30%, fixing Scorching Beam and reducing the timer on Constructs.   Enchanters could probably be fixed in one coder-day.  Turning the other mage classes into crowd controllers, then rebalancing most encounters to require that crowd control sounds like a far bigger task.</P> <DIV>And does anyone *really* want to see wizards with 1,500-pt nukes *and* effective mezzes?  Heh.</DIV>

[KaltenAlTh]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Oneira wrote:<BR>Must chanters become more DPS oriented therefore and less crowd control?  It won't work.  The game already has that.  Chanters will never be able to compete with wizs and warlocks for DPS, nor even Summoners I imagine.  So why make them?  If that is SOE's logic, it doesn't make sense. <BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This point of view that enchanter classes are not ment to do both DPS and CC well puzzles me. Other classes do several things well.</P><FONT size=2> <UL> <LI>A monk both tanks well and does good damage.</LI> <LI>The healer classes can do great healer and yet still very good damage.</LI> <LI>A Guardian is the ultimate "tank" but can do 2x or 3x the damage an enchanter class (lvl 40+)</LI> <LI>A wizard can both be the ultimate damage class and yet still do CC and transfer power well.</LI> <LI>A swashy can both do great damage and group sneak.</LI> <LI>So why can't a enchanter do damage well and do CC?</LI></UL> <P>As it stands now;</P> <UL> <LI>A 44 wizard friend of mine will kill 4 of the same solo mob in the same time I can kill 1 at lvl 47.</LI> <LI>A guardian friend of mine can tank and kill a mob while the guardian is AFK, yet this same mob kills me with little effort.</LI> <LI>A fury friend of mine when we are both in "full out damage mode" can do about 20% more damage then me.... And heal the group.</LI> <LI>I watch swashy rip off a series of 300-500 damage hits all in a row and very fast, I meanwhile nuke for 250'ish every 4 seconds if im lucky.</LI></UL> <P>I'm supposed to be a member of the highest damage archtype. If a wizard does 10k damage in a fight, i as an enchanter don't expect to do 12k, or 10k or even 8k, i'd be happy with 6k (60% of the damage of a wizard) rather then the 30% or so that I get now.</P> <P>I'm looking for DPS changes like the following</P> <UL> <LI>Make my dots last a considerable longer time.</LI> <LI>Fix my Scorching Beam spell.</LI> <LI>Give me another high end pure damage FAST nuke.</LI> <LI>Make my high int effect the spells I cast in a positive way</LI> <LI>Scale the damage on my dots and nukes. A 40 damage dot and a 250 damage nuke on a level 50 mob is essentially no damage.</LI> <LI>Let me cast my spells faster and reduce recast times.</LI> <LI>Change the timers on our Construct line so they start when the spell is cast, not when the spell expires (this would make constructs available for every other encounter, not every third or fourth).  **taken from Oghier**</LI></UL></FONT> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by KaltenAlThor on <span class=date_text>04-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:26 AM</span>

[Cylanth]

<DIV>Helix, you are a 29 Illusionist.  Thats all we need to know about your point of view.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At level 29, you just got Phantasmal Charge (our 2sec recast nuke) and Prismatic Discord (our powerful AE).  At that level, your DPS is very comparable to other mages and even tanks and scouts.  In addition, you have all the enchanter utility too.  Right now, you might think Illusionists rock.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But then, it all goes down hill from there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You will NEVER get an upgrade to Phantasmal Charge for the rest of your career.  THe upgrade to Prismatic Discord (Prismatic Strife) is only a marginal upgrade.  Your DPS at level 50 is almost the same as it was at level 30, while other mages, scouts and tanks DPS have theirs increased substantially to meet the level of the higher level mobs.  Your DPS will always be stuck at level 30 mode, even at level 50.  Mezzs are essentially not needed 90% of the time.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, you can take heart knowing that you will always be a good buffbot.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> But not to entirely burst your bubble, SoE is aware of our pathetic DPS, and have posted that it will be addressed in a future patch.  When that patch comes out, nobody knows.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, basically, enjoy your class during the low 30s. That may be the last time you do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And yes, I am writing this with a smirk, because I do enjoy my class, despite all its major flaws.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Cylanth, 50 Illusionist, Crushbone  </DIV>

[TheTrueHel]

<div></div>Okay...while I am only a lvl 29 illusionist, i've been reading the forums for a while and understand the problems above lvl 30 other illusionist are facing...but what i'm trying to say is that wouldn't you rather your mezzes improve than have a higher DPS? My and my 3 friends are fighting big and hard enough mobs, that i don't find myself nuking as often as i am mezzing.  I would hope that is fixed in the future as well....but i do agree at least our DPS is being fixed in LU7...cause that would make our battles go alot faster...when the mezzing isn't needed.  Right now, my class works for my group, but from what i'm hearing i'm worried on just how useful I will be in the future? I do have a few questions for other illusionist though....with binding light, when the root is broken and it no longer shows the the image in my active spells list....is it still slowing the enemy?  Or is that just an outright pointless root altogether? What exactly are our fluff powers past lvl 30 and when do we get them? Also has anyone finished the bloodline chronicles and know what move we recieve for all that shtuff? <div></div><p>Message Edited by TheTrueHelix on <span class=date_text>04-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:58 PM</span>

[auk]

What would improved mezzes do to better define and improve our role in a group? We're already the best. No, if any of my "utility" spells need an improvement, it is the roots. <div></div>

[Oghi]

<P>Our mezzes are good enough now.  While it would be nice to have the AoE mezz that coercers get (which doesn't mezz *you*), the one we have is functional.  Our two single-target mezzes make it pretty easy to lock down three creatures, or to keep one resistant named from moving.  There have been very, very few times when I've felt that my crowd control tools were lacking.</P> <P>Our stifles and power drains could be better.  Speechless is a remarkable spell, but it becomes obsolete eventually.  Its replacement has only a tiny part of Speechless' power.  Moreover, we cannot stifle ^^^'s, though others can. While I wouldn't mind seeing some improvement here, I can live with the fact that enchanters are not always the best stifle-caster for every encounter.  We are for most, others are for some.</P> <P>For all that, the best way to control most crowds or stifle most beasts is to kill them quickly.  Our mezzing and stifles simply aren't needed in the vast majority of normal groups.</P> <P>Truehelix, I suspect you'll get more mileage out of mezzing than do most of us, as you appear to play exclusively in a small group.  A ^^ add or two is far more dangerous to a group of three or four than it is to the more standard party of six.  I sometimes group with a paladin - warlock team, and in those cases, mezz is *very* handy, as any add will overwhelm the paladin's healing ability.  Rest assured that, if you keep your spells upgraded, you'll have the tools to do this job well at most level ranges (there are a few times when we only have one working mezz, but we do end up with two at 40 - 50).</P>

[TheTrueHel]

Yeah, i rarely play in pick up groups, but i tried one today (first time in about 8 levels) and realized just how my funcationality wasn't needed...considering half the people i played with didn't know what mezzing was and were constantly breaking it.  That would a great time to just have dps so i could hammer away at enemies.  Either way, i prefer my small group...xp is much faster and we hand out the loot according to who needs it....not just a constant free for all. <div></div>

[TheTrueHel]

OH, and i thought coercers were worse off on mezzing than we are?  How can that be if they have a group mez with out mezzing themselves? That would be an awesome ability to have? <div></div>

[auk]

They get one single target mez that CAN be interrupted. Their stuns have a power drain component, so they can't quick-stun-mez like we can. With their single mez, they can only lock down two mobs safely at a time, so mezzing an entire encounter of 3 or more mobs is not really possible for them, except for a short period of time. I'd kill for their AE mez, but really, its about the only one-up on us that they have. <div></div>

[Iren]

<P>:smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>I and my group will keep Helix as our personal Illusionist.  I'm so glad to have not had the <EM>pleasure</EM> of grouping with some of the other "Illusionists" who have posted thus far.  Crowd Control not necessary you say?  While its potential at the current time is lacking in some areas, that will change when the combat changes come.  Watch and see how your CC is needed when the amount of damage players are hit for(tanks especially) nearly doubles.  They'll be thanking God for that mezzer or they'll be finding a couple more Priests to tag along.  Oh, wait, those groups I'm talking about are aleady full with six people...  They'll have to drop some DPS if they want more healing, see ya two Wizzies/Warlocks...  Which means they won't burning through those mobs like they did before, they'll be more along the lines of out-lasting them.  In the meantime, my group(Zerk-Temp-Warlock-Illus) will continue on at the same, fast pace we have always had with virtually no adjustment whatsoever.</P> <P>Most of you need to spend far less time worrying about how you stack up to the rest of Mages in DPS.  With the changes I've seen, your class is about to become very popular.  On top of your CC ability, your class also has some of the best Mage class buffs in the game(your "Breeze"-hate issue is being addressed as well).  Think what you will though, I could really care less what anyones opinion of any class is in this game.  Just about every post in every class forum revolves around the concept of "our class should be the best class!".  Whah.  It ain't gonna happen.  There is no best class and there never will be.  "Best Classes" are for the template-stackers in SWG and the pathetic soloers of WoW.</P> <P>So, you can keep crying and I'll keep doing with my four man group what you can't do with six or more.  May all your pick-up groups give you debt and a quest.</P> <P> </P> <P>Irenik - Zerker of HighKeep</P><p>Message Edited by Irenik on <span class=date_text>04-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:32 PM</span>

[Oghi]

<P>Irenik,</P> <P>I will bet you every plat you have, and give you 2:1 odds, that tanks in normal groups do not take twice as much damage after the patch, relative to now.  I understand that you "really could care less" about others' opinions, so perhaps you could find a better use for your time than visiting other class's forums and calling them whiners.   Especially when you are commenting on classes you don't play at level ranges you've not seen.</P>

[Iren]

<DIV>Oh, speaking from experience are you?  Someone who is playing on Test perhaps?  Thought not.  Wy don't you go make a toon there then speak.</DIV>

[auk]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Irenik wrote:<p>:smileyvery-happy:</p><p>I and my group will keep Helix as our personal Illusionist.  I'm so glad to have not had the <em>pleasure</em> of grouping with some of the other "Illusionists" who have posted thus far.  Crowd Control not necessary you say?  While its potential at the current time is lacking in some areas, that will change when the combat changes come.  Watch and see how your CC is needed when the amount of damage players are hit for(tanks especially) nearly doubles.  They'll be thanking God for that mezzer or they'll be finding a couple more Priests to tag along.</p><hr>You will find its necessity is currently lacking in <b>most</b> areas. We have yet to see what the combat changes are going to bring, but I'm very skeptical that those changes are going to increase the necessity for CC. Such a thing is contrary to the intended position of the EQ2 producers, in that they want to increase content accessibility, not close it off to the large numbers of people and groups who lack crowd control. Speculation, however, is just that. We'll wait and see<p>I must say, I am also glad to have not had the pleasure of grouping with someone such as yourself. There are enough rude people I have to deal with every day to add yet another to the list.</p><hr><p>Most of you need to spend far less time worrying about how you stack up to the rest of Mages in DPS.  With the changes I've seen, your class is about to become very popular.  On top of your CC ability, your class also has some of the best Mage class buffs in the game(your "Breeze"-hate issue is being addressed as well).  Think what you will though, I could really care less what anyones opinion of any class is in this game.  Just about every post in every class forum revolves around the concept of "our class should be the best class!".  Whah.  It ain't gonna happen.  There is no best class and there never will be.  "Best Classes" are for the template-stackers in SWG and the pathetic soloers of WoW.</p><hr>We don't care how we stack up to the rest of the mages. Some do, most of us just want a viable role in a game that does not require our brand of utility and gets little benefit from having it. We compare our utility to other classes in that healing is always necessary (most healers can out-damage us) and tanking is always necessary (most tanks can out-damage us), but CC is not. Our role is left to our buffs, but we are not bards, and they can out-damage us anyway.To generalize that the people here, most of whom have very reasonable opinions, want our class to be the best in the game is patently false. We've experienced, first hand, what our role is and how it evolves (or devolves) throughout all levels and throughout the majority of content. Its obvious to me that you have not. You're entitled to your opinion, but you are NOT entitled to come here and dismiss our opinions with your pathetic attempt at trolling.<hr>So, you can keep crying and I'll keep doing with my four man group what you can't do with six or more.  May all your pick-up groups give you debt and a quest.<hr><p>In case you weren't paying attention, some have already stated that enchanters are excellent in smaller, or otherwise flawed groups.</p><p>Look, your friend came here and asked US to explain these things. So we did, in a very reasonable manner. To call that crying, or whining, is just plain stupid. Helix has been completely respectable, and then you come in here at the end of the conversation and attempt to troll us.For what purpose? Get a little perspective, and try not to damage your friend's reputation by association.</p></blockquote></span><div></div>

[TheTrueHel]

As far as my reputation, I could care less what people think of me.   Often times I can't express what I really want to say in writing and thank Irenik for posting. <div></div>

[Iren]

<DIV>Double post</DIV><p>Message Edited by Irenik on <span class=date_text>04-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:34 PM</span>

[Iren]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> auk wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>**Omitted as I don't want this post to take half a page**</P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <DIV>So how much damage is enough?  Warlock/Wizard DPS?  I'm kidding with you of course.  It would be insane for the other casting classes to think they should be on par with the Wiz/War Nuke Machines.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Everyone seems to overlook the fourth type of character.  There was mention of there being three - Tank, Healer, and DPS.  The fourth is Utility.  These classes are spread out amongst all four archetypes.  Your class is one such.  The problem with the utility of your class, and one that is seen regualrly, is the utter lack of the average player understanding how the mezzing system works and the ways is can be used to your advantage.  You are much more than Crowd Control and a mana-battery.  Chanters alone have the ability to essentailly "pause time" in the middle of an encounter.  Your class determines when the fight begins after the group is pulled.  You can give time for members of the group to fully debuff an encouter without ever breaking the mez(From the perspective of a tank - The largest amount of damage I receive in vast majority of encounters occurs with the first 10 seconds of the fight).  While you cannot trivialize encounters that should be quite difficult, you can cause them to become very easy to deal with - Giving greater xp and greater chance at better loot.  Even in a full group of six.  Its not just about how fast you can kill off the encounter, its also about how efficiently you can go about it.  The more HP/MP you end an encounter with the less downtime you have and you are more ready to deal with the worst that can happen.  Less downtime means you can more effectively clear out mobs that are either part of your goal or are between you and your goal.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But I'm not here to tell Illusionists how to play the game.  After all, I know nothing at all about your class - Not like I constantly group with an Illusionist or anything.  Not to be harsh, but if the class is that bad why haven't you all rerolled?  There's people who have been posting complaints for a long time now.  If they had rerolled back then, they would be the class they so obviously wish to be - A Wizard.  Your points about the bugs in your class past level 30 are well taken.  However, its not as if you're the only class that has issues after that point.  But again I go back to my initial question.  Seriously this time, what kind of increase are you wanting?  All I see on your forums is "We need higher DPS".  Well, how much higher?  Fixing your scaling of DPS would increase it at higher levels, but I sense that would not be enough for most of you.  Most of you seem to want Nukes.  So what will be traded for this new level DPS you'd like?  As a Zerker I traded a chunk of mitigation away for higher DPS.  Wizs/Wars traded virtually any ability to take a meaningful hit for their massive numbers.  Its a give and take system and it has to stay that way or you will end up with "Best classes" - Something which I'm sure most people don't want to see happen.  Yet, I only see people asking for more DPS.  No "take away our power regen lines for more DPS.  leave that for the bards" posts that I've seen.  Just a simple question and one that would need to be answered if you truly were interested in making your class better and more fun to play but at the same time balanced with the other classes.</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN>  <P><SPAN class=time_text><EM>In case you weren't paying attention, some have already stated that enchanters are excellent in smaller, or otherwise flawed groups.</EM></SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text>I do have to respond directly to this statement.  Smaller is far from flawed.  Maybe the small groups you join are completely worthless, but that only speaks to the ability of the players you group with.  I suppose you like watching that <FONT color=#cc3333>Fabled</FONT><FONT color=#ffffff> or </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>Legendary</FONT> +x Int item that you need go to some scout because "they need money".  To each his own I suppose.  I prefer to try and keep my groupmates equipped with the best that blood, sweat, and cold hard cash can buy - not give it out to a tag along we picked up to "fill a spot".  As if you need six people to do anything in this game short of an epic encounter.</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Irenik on <span class=date_text>04-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:13 PM</span>

[Oghi]

<P>The issues that trouble illusionists are not apparent at level 29, where Helix is now.  In fact, levels 28 - 35 or so are when illusionists peak.  Speechless is a wonderful drain, our DPS is quite adequate, and many tanks have not come into their own prime yet.  That makes crowd control quite helpful in the areas you're hunting at those levels.</P> <P>The issues arise later.  Full groups have little need of crowd control throughout 95% of the content at 40+, and our DPS doesn't change too much from where we were at level 30.  Most classes experience enormous jumps in their damage capabilities from 30 - 50.  Illusionists do not.  The spells that served well in Ruins of Varsoon aren't quite as impressive in Lavastorm.  With little need for mezzing, and damage capabilities beneath those of all tank classes and most priests, that leaves illusionists in a mana regen role.  Yes, we make good buff bots.  But most of us don't find that role to be much fun in the long-term.</P> <P>Irenik, your theory that there is a fourth archetype, one focused on "utility," may seem like a sensible design decision to you. However, it is not the design decision the devs have made.  The mage archetype is a DPS archetype.  Enchanters are mages.  I'm not making this up, or wishing it were true.  You can, if you wish, use the dev tracker to read posts by Moorgard and other devs regarding the archetype system which is the foundation of the game.</P> <P>This does not mean that enchanters expect warlock damage.  That would be over-reaching.  Enchanters have more damage mitigation and utility than do sorcerers, and that must be taken into account.  However, enchanters may reasonably expect to do more damage than tanks and priests.  Tanks and priests can do things even more useful to groups than mezz and mana regen -- they can tank and heal.  In addition, tanks and priests have substantially greater defenses than enchanters.  Most enchanters seek a DPS level in keeping with these concerns, somewhere above paladins and druids, but below sorcerers and predators.</P> <P>Frankly, the fact that "you group with an illusionist all the time" is a laughable justification for your posts.  I group with a paladin all the time.  However, this does not make me an expert on the role of a paladin when taking on those level 50, high-end raids.  I've not been on many of those, and I've certainly never done so as a paladin.</P> <P>You, however, are remarkably unafraid of letting your ignorance affect the strength of your opinions.  If you really feel you understand the issues illusionists face in the 40 - 50 range, based on playing a berserker into the low-30's, then there is little anyone can say to you.  I wonder how you would react to someone explaining the berserker's strengths and weaknesses, based on their ability to roxxor all the critters on the Isle of Refuge?  While playing a cleric.</P>

[Iren]

<DIV>Only time will tell whether or not what you believe about your class pans out for the way my group plays.  I highly doubt that at level 50 my group would be just as well replacing our Chanter with a Wizard and still maintain the same survivability, efficiency, and speed.  But, differing opinions for differing playstyles - Nothing more than that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There's always the wild card of the combat changes on test right now as well, which I hope does bring an increase of damge to the game - Making your role all the more important and most likely necessary the higher in level you become.  After all, I thought people played this game for the challenge it presented.  MMO "Easy mode" is that way ----> <A href="http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/" target=_blank>www.worldofwarcraft.com</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best of luck to you though, but knowing SoE your class could be at 0 DPS and it'll be a year before its fixed.  Asking for extra, well, you might not want to hold your breathe.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Irenik on <span class=date_text>04-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:51 PM</span>

[Bric]

<DIV>Irenik,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think what everybody in this forum would like to say right now but isn't brave enough to is, "Would you please get your b*tchy a*s out of OUR forum, and quit telling us how we should play OUR class?" I'm sure you don't mind being rude and barging in on other classes' threads since you have your little cute bufu buddy group (besides Helix, he's cool) that you don't have to worry about [Removed for Content] off. Everybody else here is kind, understanding, and informative because we play the game the way 99% of everybody else plays it, without our best buddy's help and planning. Now go [Removed for Content] somebody else off, preferably in your own d*mn forum.</DIV>

[TheTrueHel]

I would like to point out a little....wouldn't another class aside from our own know whats good for their group?  Irenik has grouped with and without Enchants and i'm *$%#&! sure can tell the difference we bring.  Unlike alot of players who probably don't have alot of higher lvl character in different classes.  Also...i would like to bring up that you don't even know the rest of our group, so you can't judge them either. And the illusionist in this forum are kind?! Have you even read previous post in other threads?  Even when i posted this thread most of the reply gave  feeling as though I was being mocked for wanting to have CC more focused on than our DPS! <div></div>

[Bobok]

<P>Most enchaters would like CC to be a focus in this game, like it was in EQ.  However, this will never happen.  Sony has made a determined effort to change the holy trinity of warrior, cleric, and enchanter into the divine duo of fighter and priest.  By having fewer required members for a group, its much easier to form groups.  As much as I miss the days of desperatly mezing 9 mobs and having 14 stopwatches on hand to keep track of them all, those days will never be seen in EQ2.  The only way I can ever see that happening would be for them to give better CC to sorcerers and summoners, at least enough to lock down two mobs.  I seriosly doubt they will ever do that.  So we ask for something we think is attainable, dps better than a fighter/priest.</P> <P>All traditional groups begin and end with having a fighter and a priest.  Since these two are the required foundation for groups, joining a group or creating one themself is simpler for them than for other classes.</P> <P>Priest:  "Hmm, it looks like there arn't any groups looking for more."</P> <P>Priest:  /msg Fighter "Care to start a group?"</P> <P>A group has been formed.</P> <P> </P> <P>If you try to create a group as a mage however, you have to hope to find both a priest and a fighter lfg at relativly the same time.  If you don't, the fighter/priest already in your group will leave, realizing they have a better chance of finding a group than they do with you forming a group.</P> <DIV>Since fighters and priests have such easy groupability, they should not have higher dps than enchanters.  I don't want the dps of a wizard/necromancer/ect.  I just want more dps than a fighter/priest, and I really don't think thats asking for too much.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>TheTrueHelix, you have dismissed the arguments of very experienced enchanters.  Your arguments lack substance.  Of course people will begin to loose there temper.</DIV>

[Oghi]

<P>Helix,</P> <P>I apologise for the impolite tone of my initial responses to you.  It was a reaction to the fact that I've posted the same basic information many, many times.  So have others.  About once per week, we have a level 28 - 35 illusionist pop in here and say, "We rock!  You guys are crazy! Speechless is incredible!"  So we post, again, that the game changes at 40+, our spells don't scale, speechless becomes obsolete, etc etc.  It becomes a bit repetitive, and some of us get grumpy (and by "some of us," I mean me).  This was exacerbated by the timing of your post -- just after we learned that SOE has dropped promised plans to improve our class DPS in Live Update 7.</P> <P>Another regular event is some other class coming in here and saying, "*$%#&!, we love the illusionist in our guild and always invite him to raids LOL u guys r whiners LOL!!!"  Those posts get really old.  Yes, people want us along for mana regen.  But not many of us care to play buff bot.  In the real world, any of the "Desperate Housewives" would be welcome to follow me around and keep me, er.. buffed.  I'd guess that before any of them would volunteer for that role, they would want to know whether it will hold their long-term interest.  In any event,  I won't apologise for my reaction to your know-it-all friend, for arrogance and ignorance are an unappealing combination.</P> <P>What you see in this category is 40+ illusionists saying, "There isn't enough here to hold our interest.  We don't want to be dragged along as mana batteries, contributing little else of import over the course of most hunts."  Enchanter is a heck of a class in the tiny sliver of content where we're needed.  In the other 90% of the world, we need something useful and fun to do.  Outdamaging the tanks and the priests would be a good start.</P> <P> </P>

[TheTrueHel]

If you actually read my starting post for this thread you'd realize i don't say a single thing about our class being awesome!  I even posted that i've been reading the forums for a while...I won't repost what i have already but i'll summarize for you. Why are people wanting us to become a DPS class and less of CC class... I was basically pointing out that i'd rather have my moves fixed or improved....like roots, and my adept alacrity, than have a boost in DPS....although i'll welcome it just the same....BUT if i really wanted to play DPS...i would've played a wizzy. <div></div>

[Pins]

<blockquote><hr>TheTrueHelix wrote:If you actually read my starting post for this thread you'd realize i don't say a single thing about our class being awesome!  I even posted that i've been reading the forums for a while...I won't repost what i have already but i'll summarize for you. Why are people wanting us to become a DPS class and less of CC class... I was basically pointing out that i'd rather have my moves fixed or improved....like roots, and my adept alacrity, than have a boost in DPS....although i'll welcome it just the same....BUT if i really wanted to play DPS...i would've played a wizzy. <div></div><hr></blockquote>We suck at soloing, bar none, we are one of, if not the worst solo class(next to of course Coercers, cannot forget about them). Roots work better, what does that get us, the ability to nuke away from 300 damage from afar every now and then, hah, useless. Alacrity doing more? Melee counts for 1/4th of a damage that a tank/scout does, haste will not fix that, and in fact, they are making the spell scale next patch, but probably about 1% per bump, meaning Celerity for example, 42% at app1, 43% at app2, 44% at app3, 45% at app4, 46% at adp1, 48% at adp3, 49% at mas1. Wait, Legerity is 49%, and will probably increase the same way, what a big joke, wonder if anybody on test can confirm or disagree with these numbers so we can get exacts.We don't want UBER wizard/warlock dps, we want better than tank and priest dps, because they have more utility than us. I'm in agreeance with the other high level illusionists who are telling your friend to go back to his own class, unless he plays an illusionist he doesn't know what we go through.As has been said many times, CC is useful in 5% of places. DPS is useful in 100%. I'll say it again, we don't want the DPS of a wizar/warlock, we want something that is higher than tanks and priests. Our spells are fine, except root, be nice if we had a root that actually worked, but without DPS how do we kill the root'd mob?In 4 people or less groups, CC is amazingely useful, but in 5 and 6 person groups, it's a joke. If our CC was made more useful, we'd be back into the Holy Trinity, which would blow for everybody else, plus could you just imagine the whiney it would lead to, because of how few chanters there are.If you want us to be a buffbot, which is basically what we are right now, with crap dps. I'm playing an Illusionist for the CC and the spells. So you know what, I'll say what I was going to say earlier, but didn't feel like saying it, wait for the high levels, then realize how useless we are except as a buffbot.

[God_of_Avalon]

<P>Message Edited by God_of_Avalon on <SPAN class=date_text>04-18-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>06:43 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by God_of_Avalon on <span class=date_text>04-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:43 PM</span>

[Oneira]

Oghier, I tend to agree with you and another poster on this.  Illusionists have CC, but that just isn't enough because of the way in which EQ2 is designed to go away from the ideas of EQ1.  Illusionists are in effect a hangover from EQ1. For that reason it's true, we do need to be able to fill the role of a DPSer, obviously not like Sorcs or even Conjs, but certainly better than we've got.  Even at my lower level the only way for me to generate real damage is using HOs. Frankly, I think the devs have put painted themselves into a corner on this one.  They have defined the role of mages, and in so doing, they really don't know what to do with Coercers and Illusionists.  It will be interesting to see if there are any real changes coming up. <div></div>

[Ralthaime]

Although EQII was designed for SOLO & Group there are some issues with being able to kill on your own anything that is not at least 4 lvl below and green flat, I do not think that the game was intended to restrict the class dependant on if you SOLO or GROUP. You coments on the class in total presme that we know if we want to solo before we have ever played the game, after investing many hours in a class, i was surpised to find that it is very very hard to solo the game. I have no real point but feel that you have assumed that the player knows all about the game, environment and stucture of the EQII system before picking a class, I for one did not, and not being 12 with all my mates playing at school it was a learning curve, I enjoy the class in a group I work well and with Aura and breeze stacking, an Int of 248 and power to match at lvl 37 I KA, just not much on my own. <div></div>

[Gorkk00]

Well, i can't agree with this DPS statement... I'm level 30, and my brother has a 26 wizard. And he does at least 50% more damage than I do, so no, our DPS is not very comparable to othere mages... And for tank and scouts, well, i'm nearly always outdamage by any class, even healers and troub, and even when they have a lower level (i group quite often with lower levels to finish some quest i can't solo, even if the mobs are grey or low green to me). But I agree that at this level, illusionist is a good class in group, particularly when you take mobs that are orange-red to the group members (except for me of course - but when you take low red mobs for the illus in a group for which they are blue, you can do pretty much nothing as your mezz keep beeing resisted <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />). So yes so far illusionist is good at level 30, but i won't say it rocks either... When a paly can take centaur captain alone at level 30 ending the fight with 75% health and 25% power, and an illus level 30 with a 26 warden have trouble to beat him (with his 2 guys), finishing with 0% power, having used 2 times the canni spell and avoided death by two times, you can't say illusionist rocks at level 30 <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <span><blockquote><hr>Cylanth wrote:<div>Helix, you are a 29 Illusionist.  Thats all we need to know about your point of view.  </div> <div> </div> <div>At level 29, you just got Phantasmal Charge (our 2sec recast nuke) and Prismatic Discord (our powerful AE).  At that level, your DPS is very comparable to other mages and even tanks and scouts.  In addition, you have all the enchanter utility too.  Right now, you might think Illusionists rock. </div><hr></blockquote></span> <div></div>