A coercer's stats

[Madall]

<div>It's time to upgrade a few armor peices again and it got me to thinking about stats.</div><div> </div><div>Okay, first of all I have had a lot of mages and fighters tell me to go for int first. Int, then stamina.</div><div> </div><div>After thinking about this, I know int is power pool...But I have power regen spells, buffs, ect and power is never really an issue.</div><div> </div><div>Then there's int being a damage increaser.  Okay, really...how many damage spells do we have and how often do you use them?  I find myself using mez, charm, power debuffs, and stuns the most.  In groups, I leave the damage dealing to the assassins and warloks.</div><div> </div><div>So, having addressed the issue of int with myself, I looked around for more answers.  One answer I got was agility.</div><div> </div><div>Agility she says? Well, makes sence to me, personaly. Agility heightens our mitigation and avoidance of being hit right? What good would crowd controll or power regen be if I was dead, or couldn't mez?  And then the poor DPS's wouldn't have their attack speed buff anymore and mobs would kill the healers and we'd all be in trouble! Meanwhile the dragons would swoop down from KOS and into the exact place we were and hatch little drakelings and they'd camp our corpses and all of Norrath would be doomed! <pants and takes a moment></div><div> </div><div>Okay, so back to stats.</div><div> </div><div>There's stamina. Useless to me. Sure is great to have a lot of hitpoints, but I'll leave that up to the tanks.</div><div> </div><div>There's wisdom.  WHat exactly doese wisdome do? Do we need high wisdome?  Are we true mages who need high int? </div><div> </div><div> I then saved up some money and decided to go shopping.  Most of what I have on now is first in int. second in resists.  Should I really change that?  What, besides my level of spell (adept or master) would change the way I get resisted?  Which brings me to another topic about how I've known no difference in my master spells vs my adept spells being resisted, but I'll save that for another thread.</div><div> </div><div>And what's with that Bzzt Broot (spelling) helmet on the broker?  being as cheap as 25g, maybe less, makes me wonder what's great about it. I mean there's a specialist's hat there for over a plat and it's stats don't appeal to me as much as the helmet.  Maybe it's the unknown that has my interest. Meanwhile I think I may buy it and try it on. maybe it's pertty.</div><div> </div><div>Wow, I should have gotten to the point in the first paragraph.... And here's my question,</div><div> </div><div>"What stat are prioritizing and why?"  Meanwhile, Can I see some pictures or links to what's available to us at level 60? Jewelry, armor, whatever you can throw at me.</div><div> </div><div>Meanwhile I'll stand in my bathrobe and slippers at the broker's office, waiting, watching and exploring the many choices. </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>-Madallia 57 coercer </div><div>Antonia Bayle</div><div> </div><div> </div>

[Wrapye]

There has been some indication that int can have an impact on how long charms last.  I'm not really sure if that is the case, but since it is easy enough to get int items, there isn't much harm in boosting it.  It really isn't hard to hit the stat cap, though.Wis boosts resists, at 3% per point, so you will get a little bit of resist there, but not a heck of a lot.The stat I'm looking to improve these days is Str.  After running around with a group for a few hours and the split of coins, I can be lightly encumbered from the weight of copper coins....Resists:  You're never going to have much avoidance or physical mitigation, and the attacks that are likely to affect you are magical AoEs of some sort anyway, so boosting resists is often a good thing.  It is really important if you raid, as the nameds often have AoE attacks of one sort or another.<div></div>

[Aranieq]

<div></div><p>It really depends on what kind of coercer you are hun.</p><ul><li>A battle mage would like high hp, focus and avoidance </li><li>A primary CC would prefer high subj, defense, focus  and avoidance</li><li>A pet handler would prefer high subj</li><li>A power bot blue bar healer, would go with high FT and INT</li><li>A DPS coercer would go INT, disruption</li></ul><p>Me... I have 3 sets of armor set ups: (left / right armor and charms)</p><ol><li>primary - Pet / DPS + str gear since I melee when not CC</li><li>Secondary - CC / DPS (when the templar wont stop curing or it's better to not charm)</li><li>Tertiary - DPS / Resists (ussually raid role)</li></ol><p>I keep my INT within 5 of cap at all times just switching out the + skill and + stat gear i prefer or when i get a fury i throw in extra STR or wis gear since they allways trash the int cap for me.  When I have an SK I go STR and melee with the melee procs and STR buff.  We have major tradeoffs at times from one role to the other but theres so much more to choose from than just 1 role.  You can see for me I'm ALLWAYS in some for of DPS role, weather its my primary role or secondary depends on the group/situation.</p>

[Tanatus]

<div>Several sets of gear as it was stated above...</div><div>a) Solo gear - Max HP/HP regeneration/AGI/WIS and as much as possible balanced resistance - screw int, screw ALL skills you dont need that - +70 subjugation WILL NOT help you even on ditch control pet .... tested with +43 to subj and with +0 subj - NO DIFFERENCE what so ever.</div><div>b) Group gear -Max INT, max PW regeneration, max damage procing gear, max de-agro procing gear - you mage thus you are DPS...</div><div>c) Raid gear - Multiple resistance gear, Max HP regeneration, Max Healing Procs on gear, Max De-agro procs on gear, Max PW regeneration, Max WIS, max STA</div>

[ootpek]

I personally build my coercer for soloing casters and using casters as pets.  INT keeps coming so I don't really worry about that.  I work on Agi for avoidance and Wis for resists.  The extra resists just keep me from taking that HUGE hit off a spell and dying without a fight on occasion.  And then...cause the casters don't hit that well compared to tank mobs, the extra avoidance with the extra AGI makes a bigger difference to me when they start meleeing. Course in a group all that agi and wis only helps occasionally.  <div></div>

[Terayon]

INT for power STR to carry all your loot.. <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span><div></div>

[Osswald]

<blockquote><hr>Tanatus wrote:<div> </div><div> you mage thus you are DPS...</div><div> </div><hr></blockquote><p>I know I have read you type that over and over. I am just wondering because I don't remember reading this anywhere that every mage is a dps class. If you wouldn't mind linking me the DEV's or GM's post stating specifically that Coercers and Illusionists are DPS based class and should be tops in the DPS catagory.</p><p>I am not looking for a player made post or someone you feel is a legitamate candiate, a post made by a devoloper or a general manager.</p><p>And answers like 'look at every other game" or something to those standards isn't acceptable. Something that the devolopers of Everquest 2 posted or stated that in there game Illusionsts and Coercers are DPS primary based class. Because if they do state this I have a whole new set of issues of trying to make us summoners and not  CC as I believe was intended.</p><p>Thanks Tanatus ahead of time for the link.</p>

[Tanatus]

<div></div><div></div><p>Osswald I am one of oldest coercers in game may be oldest aka char been created in day of game release and Moorgard many time stated and ALL mages are DPS class and ALL scout are Utility that how game was designed originally and I prefer so see it same way .... If I wanted to be untility class I'd make scout but I wanted DPS, uncontested championship in situational DPS via charmed pet and I got it plus hell a lot of tools to control charmed pet ..... including AAs like Perpentuality.</p><p>Since I am lazy to digging last year Moorgards posts about it I give you more simple and MUCH easy to find refrence .... MANUAL <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> read it, learn it, love it .</p><p>Mondor lvl 70/26AA coercer 3rd to lvl 50 on Nektulos, 3rd to lvl 60 and 5th to lvl 70 on Nektulos (danm that merging lol)</p><p>Message Edited by Tanatus on <span class="date_text">04-07-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:17 AM</span></p>

[Rhaf]

<span><blockquote><hr>Osswald wrote:<blockquote><hr>Tanatus wrote:<div> </div><div> you mage thus you are DPS...</div><div> </div><hr></blockquote><p>I know I have read you type that over and over. I am just wondering because I don't remember reading this anywhere that every mage is a dps class. If you wouldn't mind linking me the DEV's or GM's post stating specifically that Coercers and Illusionists are DPS based class and should be tops in the DPS catagory.</p><p>I am not looking for a player made post or someone you feel is a legitamate candiate, a post made by a devoloper or a general manager.</p><p>And answers like 'look at every other game" or something to those standards isn't acceptable. Something that the devolopers of Everquest 2 posted or stated that in there game Illusionsts and Coercers are DPS primary based class. Because if they do state this I have a whole new set of issues of trying to make us summoners and not  CC as I believe was intended.</p><p>Thanks Tanatus ahead of time for the link.</p><hr></blockquote>This is quite a cheeky little post you made. What does it matter what anyone thinks if Coercer can be high DPS? I think Tanatus' main point usually seems to be that you have the tools so why not use them?</span><div></div>

[Osswald]

<blockquote><hr>Tanatus wrote:<div></div><div></div><p>Osswald I am one of oldest coercers in game may be oldest aka char been created in day of game release</p><p><font color="#ffff00">I started day 3 after lauch. If you were created 48 hrs ahead of me big deal.</font></p><p>and Moorgard many time stated and ALL mages are DPS class and ALL scout are Utility that how game was designed originally and I prefer so see it same way</p><p><font color="#ffff00">Can you please link it I'm having much difficutly where it says Coercers are DPS based class. Sorry bout the frustration. I would just like the most information available.</font></p><p>.... If I wanted to be untility class I'd make scout but I wanted DPS, uncontested championship in situational DPS via charmed pet and I got it plus hell a lot of tools to control charmed pet ..... including AAs like Perpentuality.</p><p><font color="#ffff00">I understand you have a way of playing this class. Great tell people about it. Please stop making it seem your the only one in the communty that knows how to play a coercer. And that your way is the ONLY way because you thinkt that way.</font></p><p>Since I am lazy to digging last year Moorgards posts about it I give you more simple and MUCH easy to find refrence .... MANUAL <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> read it, learn it, love it .</p><p><font color="#ffff00">Read it. Not in there. Nice try on being a smart [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]. You must be a younger person that has to try to resort these tactics when someone asks you to identify your source of information to read.</font> <font color="#ffff00">Not everything is a person attack.</font></p><p>Mondor lvl 70/26AA coercer 3rd to lvl 50 on Nektulos, 3rd to lvl 60 and 5th to lvl 70 on Nektulos (danm that merging lol)</p><p>Message Edited by Tanatus on <span class="date_text">04-07-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:17 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>

[Osswald]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Rhafe1 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Osswald wrote:<blockquote><hr>Tanatus wrote:<div> </div><div> you mage thus you are DPS...</div><div> </div><hr></blockquote><p>I know I have read you type that over and over. I am just wondering because I don't remember reading this anywhere that every mage is a dps class. If you wouldn't mind linking me the DEV's or GM's post stating specifically that Coercers and Illusionists are DPS based class and should be tops in the DPS catagory.</p><p>I am not looking for a player made post or someone you feel is a legitamate candiate, a post made by a devoloper or a general manager.</p><p>And answers like 'look at every other game" or something to those standards isn't acceptable. Something that the devolopers of Everquest 2 posted or stated that in there game Illusionsts and Coercers are DPS primary based class. Because if they do state this I have a whole new set of issues of trying to make us summoners and not  CC as I believe was intended.</p><p>Thanks Tanatus ahead of time for the link.</p><hr></blockquote>This is quite a cheeky little post you made. What does it matter what anyone thinks if Coercer can be high DPS? I<font color="#ffff33">t doesn't matter that is my point. When you speak in certainties you have to be questioned by someone who doesn't think you are correct. It is the beauty of debate. </font>  I think Tanatus' main point usually seems to be that you have the tools so why not use them?</span><div></div><p><font color="#ffff00">Is cheeky when you put your face on the moniter to see how greesy it is?</font></p><hr></blockquote><p>That isn't the main point. He is cut and dry. You are this because I think that way is the mentality. I just would like to read the posts made, by developers not Tanatus, that makes him substantiate the point of certainty to reply to people that they ARE what HE feels they are and there is no other way to play the class. I've been playing this game since 3 days after launch so I don't think time played is a valid point either.</p><p>I don't see what the big deal is ask questions of people certainty. I asked for a post from a developer or gm not a players personal opinion. It isn't that complicated of a question. If you have an opinion on what you think the way something is you should state it to be that, opinion. To tell people in certainties that they ARE this paticular thing is too much for me without proper proof. I would like some valid explination and points from a person who made the game. Not some person telling the community you are what I say you are because I've been playing for forever is just the lamest.</p><p>It is nice to see another perspective of the class for Tanatus, but to tell people that they are DPS because they are a mage isn't correct imo. You cast spells if your a mage that is a certainty. If YOU choose to play your class that way, then good for you. The thing I object to is appearing that there is only one person who knows how to play the class and it is this person.</p>

[Osswald]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote><p><a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/view_profile?user.id=128" target="_blank"><span>Gallenite</span></a><span>Producer, EQII</span></p><p> </p><p></p><hr>Gallenite wrote:<div></div><div> </div><div>Likewise, the control classes of Illusionist and Coercer become much more focused on controlling enemies and empowering their allies, as opposed to inflicting direct damage.</div><blockquote>- Scott</blockquote><hr></blockquote><p> </p><p>That doesn't say all mages are DPS to me.</p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p>Message Edited by Osswald on <span class="date_text">04-07-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:09 AM</span></p>

[Nerj]

<P>Thies are the original statements from Moorgard regarding Enchanters and damage.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>"The intended order of damage output by archetype is (and always has been): <FONT size=5><STRONG>mage, scout, fighter, priest</STRONG>.</FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Mages are intended to to do a lot of damage at the price of being frail defensively." </FONT></P> <P>From -> <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=chars&message.id=5736&query.id=0#M5736" target=_blank><FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>Moorgard</STRONG></FONT> on 02-09-2005 in Upcoming Balance Changes</A></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>"As you can see, none of these factors exist in a vacuum, which is what makes all this such an involved process. But yes, when all is said and done, scouts will end up doing more damage than fighters." </FONT><- Shows that Scouts were to be better then Fighters but not Mages</P> <P>From -> <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=45984&query.id=0#M45984" target=_blank><FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>Moorgard</STRONG></FONT> on 04-28-2005 in Are fighter archetypes doomed for a dps nerf?</A></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>"Every class will have its damage adjusted as part of our overall changes to the combat system. We're not giving a specific date for this yet.</FONT></P> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Enchanters should be able to solo effectively, but keep in mind that Illusionists and Coercers really shine when they're in a group. Of all the mages, they have the most group-oriented capabilities, not only for crowd control but also for enhancing the abilities of their groupmates. It's the nature of the class that a lot of the damage potential of Enchanters comes from the allies they buff."</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>From -> <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=chars&message.id=21175&query.id=0#M21175" target=_blank><FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>Moorgard</STRONG></FONT> on 04-27-2005 in When are enchanters getting updated?</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The original concept was that some Enchanter damage was to be done from our buffs. In addition, we were to reduce damage done with our stun/stifle/mez skills, putting us on the lowend of Mage damage but better then any Scout. However, in practice this was NOT the case. That is why during the Combat revamp more charm options were put in for Coercers and an illusionary pet was put in for Illusionist. On the other hand, they reduced our core abillities against Epics with out balancing it. Therfore our use on Raids has been reduced.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In any case, I hope you see that the orginal purpose of Enchanters was damage (Mage class archtype). How that was to be done is the problem. In addition, originally scouts were NOT supposed to outdamage equally equiped Mage classes, our buffs were supposed to make up that difference. However, they (buffs) fell way short of the mark and still do today.   </DIV><p>Message Edited by Nerjin on <span class=date_text>04-11-2006</span> <span class=time_text>12:00 PM</span>

[Tanatus]

<div></div>Nerjin thanks for your time showing this newbie of coercers lol true purpose of enchanters classes in original design <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Anachronomicon]

<div>Soooo..... in conclusion...</div><div> </div><div>It doesn't really matter how you play your class as long as you don't suck.</div><div> </div><div>If you want to do DPS then by all means do DPS (You want high INT)</div><div> </div><div>You want to charm a pet all the time and solo heroics ( INT/WIS/STA ftw!)</div><div> </div><div>You want to be an uber group participant ( m1 spells/INT)</div><div> </div><div>Do what you want, and then when you finally get tired of playing an underdog class, come on here and whine dramatically about how good SOE is at nerfing and how they don't deserve your money, just like everyone else.... and on that note</div><div> </div><div>/whine I swear that after charm sucked so bad they brought it back to a state that was not as sucky as right before, but not as good as before that.  It seems like mine is much more finnicky these days... and WHY did they have to mess with corpse candles.... they were just jealous.</div>

[Nerj]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Osswald wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote><p><a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/view_profile?user.id=128" target="_blank"><span>Gallenite</span></a><span>Producer, EQII</span></p><p> </p><p></p><hr>Gallenite wrote:<div></div><div> </div><div>Likewise, the control classes of Illusionist and Coercer become much more focused on controlling enemies and empowering their allies, as opposed to inflicting direct damage.</div><blockquote>- Scott</blockquote><hr></blockquote><p> </p><p>That doesn't say all mages are DPS to me.</p><p></p><p><span class="time_text"></span></p><hr></blockquote><p> </p><p>Looks like we aren't supposed to controll enemies either then:</p><div></div><blockquote><hr>Lockeye wrote:<div>Changes to control, both positive and negative, shouldn't be looked at alone. I've been reviewing how coercers play in solo and grouping. I've watched coercers who know how to solo higher con heroics using 2 unbreakable roots while keeping 2 separate encounters locked down at the same time (<strong>no other class could pull off such a heroic feat</strong>). The less successful coercers were the ones trying to charm a pet and have it break on them as they were soloing. Charming a pet was supposed to be the gateway that allows coercers to solo successfully, which wasn't happening because it would break much too early. LU16b chances put strength back into the weaker aspects of coercer soloing, making charms last longer and break less often, addding risk involved in attempting to solo heroics without a charmed pet, and make their DPS through indirect damage more reliable.</div><div> </div><hr></blockquote><div> </div>

[Bawang]

<div></div><div></div><p>The evil derailers strike again!</p><p>I see a post about stats with 15 replies and I figure I might learn something.  Naturally, it quickly gets turned into an argument about the true role of the class. </p><p>/emote sigh</p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by Bawang on <span class="date_text">04-09-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:46 PM</span></p>

[Polonium]

"Coercers are not a DPS class. If you wanted to play a DPS class you should have played a Scout."I see this same assertion all over the forums, and it may be true in matter of actual fact, but it is NOT what we were promised when we started playing Everquest II.I started my Coercer on Day 1, based on all the many, many months of pre-release information from Sony that explicitly promised the opposite. They promised two things clearly and repeatedly:1) All mages classes will do equal, but different damage. Just as all tanks should be able to tank effectively, and any healer can do their role equally well.2) DPS will be Mages>Scout>Warrior>Priest.Certainly anyone starting a Coercer now should know that they will not compete with other mages, let alone scouts, for dps. However, those of use who started our Coercers early did so on the promise that mages would be the damage leaders and that Coercers would be equally effective as any mage.Not only do are we not in the same league with other mages for dps, our uitility skills do not compensate. Other than maybe a tiny handful of vocal posters, virtually no one else in the community feels that Coercers are remotely competetive classes. Either these posters work for Sony Propaganda, or else they are priviledged with all the best equipment and masters and view all the regular people with scorn, or else they just relish appearing superior. Elitism happens in online worlds as much as in the real world, and those of priviledge are the first to scoff at the masses of lesser means who sees their world much differently.<div></div>

[Osswald]

<DIV> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffcc>In my personal opinion, this is what I gather from the posts made by Moorgard and what I gather from what people are saying. I am going to try to break this down as my understandings. Please correct me if I error.  </FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffcc>If I understand some of the posters here, it is your understanding that you want to be tops on parce programs so that when you exit combat your name should be on top of the list and on par with wizards, warlocks, conjurer, and necro's. This you want achieved from your spell casting ability and charm abilities respectfully. So when you initiate the Program it generates damage numbers done of each individual members of the group damage done on the mob. Your saying as a coercer, in this hypothetical group structure, in a group with a Wizard, Ranger, Coercer, Paladin, Fury, and assassin the readings should be as followed:</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>(Numbers will NOT relate to actual performances. These are for clarification purposes ONLY.)</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#66ff66>Ex. 1A</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Mob- 100%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Wizard =  25%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Coercer = 25% (situational dependent)</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Ranger =  17.5%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Assassin = 17.5%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Paladin =  10%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Fury =  5%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffcc>If I understand correctly that is the way Nerjin and a few others believed Moorgard's posts to read. </FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffcc>This is the way I read and I understand it to be. I don't believe we are in dispute that the archetype is mage, scout, fighter, and priest. I think the disputes are coming from definitions of doing DPS, what is a Utility class and what is a DPS class. I also believe we are better defined as a Utility class NOT a DPS class in the sense your going to always be 1 or 2 on a parce. I find it hard to believe we are not defined as utility instead the broader scope (which I feel doesn't directly imply Enchanters)  per the archetype previously stated to indeed say YES you ARE a DPS class. You are a Utility class with DPS oriented buffs which do NOT affect your personal numbers in a parce.   </FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Take this post and quote from Moorgard. </SPAN></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33><SPAN>From -> </SPAN><SPAN><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=45984&query.id=0#M45984" target=_blank><SPAN>Moorgard on 04-28-2005 in Are fighter archetypes doomed for a dps nerf?</SPAN></A></SPAN></FONT></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffff33>"Every class will have its damage adjusted as part of our overall changes to the combat system. We're not giving a specific date for this yet.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffff33>Enchanters should be able to solo effectively, but keep in mind that Illusionists and Coercers really shine when they're in a group. Of all the mages, they have the most group-oriented capabilities, not only for crowd control but also for enhancing the abilities of their group mates. It's the nature of the class that a lot of the damage potential of Enchanters comes from the allies they buff."</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffcc>In retrospect he is saying our ranking in a group wouldn't increase from say 4th or 5th to 1st or 2nd (in overall DPS when shown in a parce).  He is saying our DPS is done to the mob by our abilities (buffs) we increase everyone else's DPS to make the difference up that Wizards, Warlocks, Conjurers, and Necro's do over us. Well of course I speak in all relativity that everything was working up to NOP. Let’s look at some numbers. </FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffcc>This is how I believe it is ment to be, our make up should rank with the previous stated group alignment.</FONT> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#66ff33>Ex. 2A</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>1. Wizard</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>2. Ranger</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>3. Assassin</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>4. Paladin</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>5. Coercer</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>6. Fury</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffcc>Before the panties get all bunched this is my explanation. If you take this statement  "It's the nature of the class that a lot of the damage potential of Enchanters comes from the allies they buff." You shouldn't be tops on the parce instead you would increase everyone’s numbers. Because of stuns/stifles we wouldn't be DPSing at that time in the numbers other mages would. You would have buffs lowering mitigation and increasing DPS done by group members to make the difference. </FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffcc>(These numbers will be taken from Ex. 1A to show relativity to my statements)</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#66ff99>Ex. 1B This would be the make up of an archetype group without an Enchanter</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Mob- 100%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Wizard =  25%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Summoner = 25%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Ranger =  17.5%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Assassin = 17.5%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Paladin =  10%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Fury =  5%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffcc>This how I see our DPS is generated and stated it should be. I do feel like we should out damage the Paladin on situational occasions. </FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#66ff66>Ex. 1C</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Mob- 100%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Wizard =  28.75%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Ranger =  21.25%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Assassin = 21.25%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Paladin =  13.75%</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Coercer = 10% (situational dependent)</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Fury =  5%</SPAN></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffcc><SPAN>As you can see we would have increase the top 4's DPS by 15% which if you added that on to our DPS of 10% that is 25% overall which puts us right on par in the stereotypical archetype but not making us 1-3 in a parce reading. Thus better defining us as a Utility class along with our stifles stuns and our ability to mez.</SPAN><SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffcc><SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN>I know some might now agree with me, but mana regen would also be a factor with DPS. If one has to play conservative b/c of slow regen and the fear of running out, they can unload more with a coercers current capabilities of mana regen and mana cloak accompanied with channel are great tools IMO that have been given to us.  </SPAN><SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffcc><SPAN>I feel in our current form we are pretty close to the way I believe we should be and are described to be in groups. We only have to increase the top 4's DPS in a group by 3.75% to add to our 10% to make our overall goal of 25% by other mages. With a mitigation debuffs to magic for the mages to gain a few extra HP and auto attack buff 3.75% is a realistic figure is you think about it. </SPAN><SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffcc><SPAN>I think all this better shows us that we are a Utility class and not a DPS class as thought of in the terms of what, other than enchanters, mages are. </SPAN></FONT></P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Osswald on <span class=date_text>04-12-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:28 PM</span>

[Polonium]

Osswald, I understand your argument about including buff damage as it is one that I have considered as well. Your argument is that the parsers don't tell the whole story. That is the reason I've actually requested several times that indirect buff damage get logged separately. That would allow parsers to accurately assign buff damage to the appropriate buffer. It would be easy with our Coercer dps buff, more difficult maybe with the Illusionist haste buff. They wouldn't have to separate it out in the chat window to keep spam down, only in the file log. At any rate, if they did this, it would go a long way toward confirming or disputing claims of total effectiveness. It might show the true worth of the Coercer as well as maybe mitigate some calls for the nerf bat say for Rangers. However, I don't believe that our dps buff and piddly reactive remotely compensate. I know of no raid situation where anyone has noticed that overall raid dps is improved better with a Coercer. Groups and raids are savvy enough to see these trends even if they aren't reflected in the parsers. Moreover, remember that there are many other classes with equal  or even better buffs than us. A fair and accurate parsing could in fact show that we are worse off by comparison than we suspect. I understand your argument, and I'd like to see actual data, but if it were true that Coercers are balanced by indirect damage, this would be much more widely perceived. Certainly when a conjuror, necro, wizard, or warlock are in a raid, there is no question that they greatly improve the dps, without studying parsers. That is not the case for Coercers except in perhaps the most unusual and atypical charm scenario. <div></div>

[Tanatus]

<P>As it stands now for group our DPS really situational .... as they should be </P> <P>in HoF its more like</P> <P>Coercer 51%</P> <P>Everyone else in group combined 49% or less.... - which I consider good</P> <P>in Vaults </P> <P>Coercer around 33-40% (thanks to [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] load casters and massive procs from Spell Scrouge) </P> <P>Warlocks around 25%-30%</P> <P>Conjurers/Necros - 20-30%</P> <P>Everyone else = rest </P> <P>Still good</P> <P>In BS/Den/Palace</P> <P>Coercer = Wizard=Warlock=Ranger=Assasin < Conjurer < Necro - still ok</P> <P>in the Labs .... <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </P> <P>Necro >>>>> Conjurer > Assasin  > Ranger > Wizard > Warlock > Paladin > Bruiser > Coercer (ouch <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ) but problem is the CANNT charm if we would able do it (and THAT what need to be fixed on raid because I dont give a danm  about mezes and stuns that Illusionists field) we would be rightfully on the top or near top of the food chain </P>

[Polonium]

Tanatus, how can you substantiate your claims? They just don't pass the snif test with most of us. Virtually no one in the game ever says "yay, a coercer, now we have dps!" or "awesome, we need those coercer debuffs to win this!" I know you've been the voice of "coercers are great" like forever, but seriously all you do is undermine the legitimate complaints of the many thousands who simply don't agree with you. Either you are a guild leader with unlimited assets, or you have incredibly horrible group/guild mates or both. What you have been claiming for all these many long months just doesn't ring true with the vast majority of us. I have the highest end gear in the game, and I am highly experienced, but I have to admit that I suck through no fault of my own. I have negligible raid value. I exist by the kindness of guildmates who truthfully would be better off replacing me in a valuable raid slot. You will probably just tell me "you don't know how to play your coercer, love it or leave it" but your claims just don't hold true. Maybe you're like the guy who loves his Edsel to death and no matter what anyone says you'll defend it to the end. Dunno. But I blame you personally for Sony refusing to listen to the rest of us <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[Osswald]

<P>Radium (LOL), </P> <P>Make no mistake. I was refering to grouping with a coercer not raiding with one. I feel the same as 99% of the community on Enchanters in raids. I don't feel we are completly usless in raids, but close. Channel and Mana Cloak are awsome spells when properly used in a raid. However, by no means am I saying this makes up for our class being some what uneffective in a raid theater. That my friend is a completly different post for a later date. </P> <P>In raid settings I am commonly in the MT's group for those two spells and our fantastic mana regen.  Unless your MT or group member is a Zerker, you shouldn't have too hard of a time keeping their mana up long enough to last the fight. </P><p>Message Edited by Osswald on <span class=date_text>04-12-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:53 PM</span>

[Osswald]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Polonium wrote:<BR><BR>Virtually no one in the game ever says "yay, a coercer, now we have dps!" or "awesome, we need those coercer debuffs to win this!"<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>As good of a laugh as I got from this, it is sad but true.

[Tanatus]

<P>Polonium I refered to group situation .... raid is competely different story .....</P> <P>We are not useless, we just bored as hell to play during raid - you can easy bot coercer during raid and nobody notice that... IF you really read as you claim you should know why Dridges so popular for rading and guess what? coercers are popular for exactly same reason. Basically all you do is buff everyone once Hate, DPS, Crack and go afk +-300-500DPS that coercer can squeeze during raid (or add +50% to that if you have brigand on raid) next to nothing or better say less then nothing then you look on necros that suppose to be in SAME tier of DPS like coercers  ..... 400 vs. 2000 DPS see a difference? And my point stand strong - IF I'd allowed to charm I'd be sometime clocking as much necro and may be more and THAT would be balance of game</P>

[Nerj]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Osswald wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P><SPAN>Take this post and quote from Moorgard. </SPAN></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33><SPAN>From -> </SPAN><SPAN><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=45984&query.id=0#M45984" target=_blank><SPAN>Moorgard on 04-28-2005 in Are fighter archetypes doomed for a dps nerf?</SPAN></A></SPAN></FONT></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffff33>"Every class will have its damage adjusted as part of our overall changes to the combat system. We're not giving a specific date for this yet.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffff33>Enchanters should be able to solo effectively, but keep in mind that Illusionists and Coercers really shine when they're in a group. Of all the mages, they have the most group-oriented capabilities, not only for crowd control but also for enhancing the abilities of their group mates. It's the nature of the class that a lot of the damage potential of Enchanters comes from the allies they buff."</FONT></SPAN></P></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Osswald, this statement from Moorgard is the biggest laugh fest of EQ2. Most everyone knows that Enchanters have the worse group enhancing abilities of all the Mages. The only thing that we had at the time of this statement, was the best mana regen in the game.  With a warlock at the time a MOB was dead before regen became a problem plus the poison buffs worked with CA's as well as auto attack. Necro's life tap, hearts, and Rez abilities are much better group enhancing abilities then the poor DPS buff that we had which only worked with auto-attack damage. Plus, mana regen that was easilty replace with in game items made it obvious why this was a joke.  </P> <P>The combat revamp chaged that with earlyer charm levels and an illusionist personae pet. In addition, they added in reactives simply because our damege ability was way to low. Note, that the group saving ability of a group mez was reduced in effectiveness, as we werre the only class able to do that.</P> <P>Some things have changed since the game was released the problem is that we still have no idea the DEVs vision is of Enchanters.<BR></P><p>Message Edited by Nerjin on <span class=date_text>04-17-2006</span> <span class=time_text>07:56 AM</span>

[Osswald]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Osswald wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffcc>Well of course I speak in all relativity that everything was working up to NOP.</FONT></SPAN></P></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><p>Message Edited by Osswald on <span class=date_text>04-16-2006</span> <span class=time_text>06:59 PM</span>