Back on 11-29-2005; Moorgard told us Illusionist Raid usefullness was being looked into.

[KaltenAlTh]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Just found the link to this on another board and it pretty much encapsulates the issue with out class.  They break our class using very very poor, lazy logic and even lazier programming: say they are looking into it and we never hear from them again or see any changes.</div><div> </div><div>(note i've deleted some of the stuff that doesn't apply to us so here's the original link)</div><div><a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=79904&query.id=0#M79904">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=79904&query.id=0#M79904</a></div><div> </div><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><p><em>First, the effect of stuns/stifles on epic mobs. Second, the impact such a change has on classes that rely on stuns/stifles as recognizable elements of their class.</em></p><p><em>While some of you might argue that the use of stuns adds an element of strategy to a fight, it effectively creates a default strategy. If you know MobX can be stunned and thus have its damage output completely negated for a given period of time, stun isn't a strategy choice but a necessity. Adding a reduction or variability doesn't really change that; it either makes stun abilities appear lame ( "it's useless because it doesn't do anything anyway" ) or makes raid forces compensate with numbers to achieve the same effect ( "a stun only lasts 1/5 as long, so let's add 4 more stunners to the raid" ).</em></p><p><em>Now by all means, we could make some raids where stunning the mob was the intended strategy. But then what becomes of the guild that doesn't have the right classes to achieve that ideal effect? It becomes a roadblock to content that they are otherwise capable of consuming. I'm not saying there aren't ways around that, but we generally prefer to avoid those kinds of situations.</em></p><p><em>Now, back to that second issue. We are aware that enchanters in particular get frustrated by having spell lines that basically have no effect on epic mobs. <font size="4" color="#ff3300"><strong>It's a topic we've been discussing a lot lately, though we haven't posted our course of action yet. Again, silence on our part doesn't mean we don't see an issue or don't care about it; it just means we're deciding what we feel the best course of action to be.</strong></font></em></p><p><em>We absolutely want all classes to feel useful on raids. Nobody likes to feel like they aren't making a significant contribution to the success of their guild or raid force.</em></p><p><strong><em>===========================Steve Danuser, a.k.a. MoorgardGame Designer, EverQuest II </em></strong></p></div></blockquote><p>Message Edited by KaltenAlThor on <span class="date_text">03-03-2006</span><span class="time_text">07:15 AM</span></p>

[SkarlSpeedbu]

<div></div><div></div><p>Heh, thats funny.  Not neading a class for epics is a lame argument.  If stunning isn't a viable option, then why is healing a viable option?  If they want to make it so that illusionists aren't absolutely needed, then where are the epics that healers are not abolutely needed?</p><p>Message Edited by SkarlSpeedbump on <span class="date_text">03-03-2006</span><span class="time_text">06:33 AM</span></p>

[dpizzle4]

OOOOI remember this post!  Yea this is exactly what I remember as a Promise to the future to at least LET US KNOW WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO DURING RAIDS!  We still feel EXTREMELY useless on raids, can you at least explain to us what you have done or not done and why we are stuck in this limbo stage? 61 Illusionist DarkillusionKithicor Server The Illuminati"I blaze chron harder than you"<div></div>

[SkarlSpeedbu]

<div></div><p>Plz add your support here.</p><p> </p><p><a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spells&message.id=8091#M8091">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spells&message.id=8091#M8091</a></p><p> </p>

[Ghartan]

Funny how the devs jump all over the ranger issues yet Illusionists are kept on the back burner <span>:smileysad:</span><div></div>

[Belizarius]

<div></div><p>Heh.</p><p>So they were aware that we were unhappy about being semi-useless against epics, and after months of waiting, what sort of fix do they eventually give us?</p><p>They start introducing similar immunities on Heroics.  I guess they decided they couldn't make us any worse in raids, so had to start nerfing our contribution in groups also.  Either that, or we're simply not on their radar at all.</p><p>Either way, there's only one conclusion I can see from this.  Chanters have no place in eq2.</p><p>I just want to know what compensation wer're going to get for the inevitable elimination of our class.</p>

[zit]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Belizarius wrote:<div></div><p>I guess they decided they couldn't make us any worse in raids, so had to start nerfing our contribution in groups also. </p><hr></blockquote>ROFLMAO :smileyvery-happy:

[MrDiz]

<blockquote><hr>SkarlSpeedbump wrote:<div></div><div></div><p>Heh, thats funny.  Not neading a class for epics is a lame argument.  If stunning isn't a viable option, then why is healing a viable option?  If they want to make it so that illusionists aren't absolutely needed, then where are the epics that healers are not abolutely needed?</p><p>Message Edited by SkarlSpeedbump on <span class="date_text">03-03-2006</span><span class="time_text">06:33 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Because all current mmorpgs are based upon the holy trinity and that is not going to change! Comparing healing and CC is non productive. Even trivially easy games like eq2 require the basic 3: tank, dps, heal.Crowd control is just not a big part of eq2. It just isnt. The entire game is trivial and therefore doesnt need CC. There is no downtime as in Eq1. Death has no consequesces as it did in eq1. Combat is extremely easy unlike in eq1.EQ1 had a place for CC because EQ1 was designed by, and designed for the pac-man generation who saw challenge in gaming as a plus point. EQ2 was designed by the doom generation who see challenge as meaning save-game every 10 secs and "surfing the web for the cheat codes".

[Rayvne2]

<div></div><blockquote>EQ1 had a place for CC because EQ1 was designed by, and designed for the pac-man generation who saw challenge in gaming as a plus point. EQ2 was designed by the doom generation who see challenge as meaning save-game every 10 secs and "surfing the web for the cheat codes".<hr></blockquote>[Removed for Content], QFT.

[WAPCE]

Hey, at least we're keeping the Spells forum busy.<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~axp696/chanterthreads.jpg">

[KaltenAlTh]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>WAPCE wrote:Hey, at least we're keeping the Spells forum busy.<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~axp696/chanterthreads.jpg"><hr></blockquote>Not doing us alot of good.

[shenker]

Well to be honest nothing is doing us any good since the devs are ignoring the class anyway. I really want us to be more useful than we are but for that to happen the devs need to actualy realise we have some large issues. I doubt that any devs actualy play the class in a raiding role because if they did they would realise something is wrong.<div></div>

[NG23985_01]

<div>MrDizzi, I'm going to point out to you a MAJOR difference between EQ1 Enchanter and EQ2 Enchanter.</div><div> </div><div>In EQ1, CC had a place, because every single mob was basically the equivalent of an EQ2+++. This made Enchanters a nearly *vital* class. With EQ2, they didnt want to make any one class absolutely vital. They said a typical group should have at least 1 member from each archetype - that means, 1 fighter, 1 mage, 1 scout, and 1 priest. That does not mean one enchanter in every single group like in EQ1.</div><div> </div><div>EQ1 Enchanters had pathetic nukes, and their DoTs were laughable. The Animation pet was insanely weak, and Charm was quite risky to use. EQ2 Enchanters have respectable nukes, fairly good DoTs, decent "indirect" damage (Prismatic Havoc, for Illusionists), and the Illusionist pet is quite reliable and strong. EQ2 Enchanters arent designed to be mezz bots like EQ1 Enchanters were. All mages are designed to DPS, the same as all priests are designed to heal, and all fighters are designed to tank. Start playing your class like a DPS class - you'll get a lot more enjoyment out of it.My Illusionist's primary hotbar includes nothing but nukes, dots, and stuns. Mezz is a secondary function - here it is again: MEZZ IS A SECONDARY FUNCTION - stop crying because CC isnt as vital as it was in EQ1.</div>

[Hassin]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>SkarlSpeedbump wrote:<div></div><div></div><p>Heh, thats funny.  Not neading a class for epics is a lame argument.  If stunning isn't a viable option, then why is healing a viable option?  If they want to make it so that illusionists aren't absolutely needed, then where are the epics that healers are not abolutely needed?</p><p>Message Edited by SkarlSpeedbump on <span class="date_text">03-03-2006</span><span class="time_text">06:33 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>You aren't comparing the same thing here. It would be more appropriate to compare the need to have healers in a raid to the need to have mages in the raid.

[zit]

<div></div><p>the comparison is more than appropriate.</p><p>he mentions stuns as viable option versus healing as viable option.</p><p>IF* enchanter were the only class with stuns you would be correct, the comparison wouldnt be ok.</p><p>however there are at least as many classes that can stun as there are classes that can heal. although enchanter are one of the best classes in regard to stuns, there are several classes that come very close to them (like monk come close to guardian in tanking?)</p><p> </p>

[Manyak]

<div>brigands can stun a mob for about the same duration that an illusionist can when cahaining em.</div><div> </div><div>just some backup for zitha <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div><div> </div>

[Dr_Cyr]

"the Illusionist pet is quite reliable and strong"sigh...<div></div>