As a Fury... I'm sorry :( [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

SnowKnight

10-19-2005, 08:44 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Supernova17 wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SnowKnight wrote:<BR>That isnt instantly though is it... <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Rapid hits instantly uses up the reactive and heals completely to the best of it's ability. That's pretty instant...<BR><BR>I really think you should raid Meeting of the Minds, this will make the point I'm trying to make more clear. Tank is in the orange, getting pummeled by 20 mobs. 2 Reactive heals go up and dump all thier charges instantly resulting in a complete heal into the green, where in that same second the Druid has gotten 2 ticks for the same ammount of HP as 2 charges from our reactives.<BR><BR><BR></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Supernova17 on <SPAN class=date_text>10-19-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>08:09 AM</SPAN><BR></P> <P></P> <HR> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I raid meeting of the minds on a regular basis. So the reactive has gone off triggered its charges, mean while you are waiting for it to refresh and the tank is getting pummeled and those 2 reactives are your emergency ones. Casting two reactives takes at least 7 seconds (assuming one single one group), which is hardly instant. In any case raiding is designed to make use of all the preist heal types I think. That is different to a group situation which is what most people here are talking about. And how arrogant to assume that I havnt raided that particular instance. </P><p>Message Edited by SnowKnight on <span class=date_text>10-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:47 AM</span>

Supernova17

10-19-2005, 08:45 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Analviper wrote:<div>I also have no problems healing.. the one thing sony have done right is given templars the ability to actually keep tanks and in most cases groups alive quite easily... only thing i feel is perhaps our reuse timers could reset a little quicker...</div><hr></blockquote>True, but we would have to give up HP on the heal to shorten the recast timer to balance it <span>:smileyindifferent:</span></span><div></div>

Kendricke

10-19-2005, 10:41 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> countercontrol wrote:<BR> <DIV>pay no attention to Radar-X he gets off to posting in every single thread in the templar channel. Yes it is getting a lil insane what all furys are getting handed, but dont feel too bad basking in the brokeness because we had almost a full year of being the best. As with everything ill just wait for the nerfbat to come back around.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Awww you're too sweet and thank you for noticing although I really don't have the time nor the desire to post in every whining thread (this isn't a channel by the way) I see here. I'll concede it has definetly gotten a <STRONG><EM>little </EM></STRONG>insane and I'm sorry you actually have to work at playing your class now but thats how its deemed the game is supposed to be played. You do have your consolation of "having a full year of being the best" though.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>There's no need for personal attacks, and even less need to respond to them in kind. Let's try to remember that we're all on the same side here. We may not all agree with the best methods to use or even the best solutions, but we all want our class to be better. Let's try to keep that in common.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Dalchar

10-20-2005, 12:24 AM

<P>Question: How quickly are reactives usually triggered, and if you were keeping them up, how many triggers will it get in a 10s timeframe?</P> <P>The regens I regen 375 x 6 in 10s (M2 choice at 54). Tossing on another regen during that timeframe nets nothing. If a reactive was chewed up in say 3-5s (which considing mobs hit more frequently than they used to but for less I know this could happen with a swarm of mobs), is it possible to get another on and it expend in that 10s timeframe? Say you did... reactive, group reactive, reactive again... that's all counting toward one person... how many times would reactives trigger in the 10s a regen would go for... I would imagine it could easily outperform a regen depending on rate of hits.</P> <P>I don't play the class so don't know so it's a real question while I read boards at work <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.</P> <P>I think at the end of the day they're relatively balanced against each other now, as you have to come up with specific instances where one is better than the other and both classes can argue until they're blue in the face at one another.</P> <P>I think furies are healing like it's cake now because they healed with gimpy heals for over 9 months, those that stuck it out and hung around at 50 prolly had adept3s or in my case masters that helped get the job done--it was extremely rough and required using Old L14ish spells to keep up. Healing now is cake by comparison and I think that's where you see furies shining and saying how wonderful and easy it is now. Conversely this is probably why clerics are having kittens, it was beyond cake to the point that a monkey could do it before and now you have to separate the mice from (wo)men.</P>

SenorPhrog

10-20-2005, 12:39 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR> <P>Question: How quickly are reactives usually triggered, and if you were keeping them up, how many triggers will it get in a 10s timeframe?</P> <P>The regens I regen 375 x 6 in 10s (M2 choice at 54). Tossing on another regen during that timeframe nets nothing. If a reactive was chewed up in say 3-5s (which considing mobs hit more frequently than they used to but for less I know this could happen with a swarm of mobs), is it possible to get another on and it expend in that 10s timeframe? Say you did... reactive, group reactive, reactive again... that's all counting toward one person... how many times would reactives trigger in the 10s a regen would go for... I would imagine it could easily outperform a regen depending on rate of hits.</P> <P>I don't play the class so don't know so it's a real question while I read boards at work <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.</P> <P>I think at the end of the day they're relatively balanced against each other now, as you have to come up with specific instances where one is better than the other and both classes can argue until they're blue in the face at one another.</P> <P>I think furies are healing like it's cake now because they healed with gimpy heals for over 9 months, those that stuck it out and hung around at 50 prolly had adept3s or in my case masters that helped get the job done--it was extremely rough and required using Old L14ish spells to keep up. Healing now is cake by comparison and I think that's where you see furies shining and saying how wonderful and easy it is now. Conversely this is probably why clerics are having kittens, it was beyond cake to the point that a monkey could do it before and now you have to separate the mice from (wo)men.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I've seen my reactives wear off in 2 or 3 seconds depending on the health of the target and how many things are hitting them. The reactive ticks with each attack. When I'm considering the heals I look at the overall total heal power myself.

DarkxLordxBu

10-20-2005, 12:50 AM

<DIV>I think Templers and Furry's are very well balanced as far as healing goes. They just heal differant. Only thing I see Templers needing is an increase in DPS. To the OP why do you think we need a nerf? We have been a broken class since release and now we finaly got fixed. I am sorry but i just dont get it. As far as the upcoming changes go I think it's a nerf becuase changing the timer on regens from 12s to 10s means harder solo play. Not that I care becuase I grp all the time. So how is it you feel we need to be nerfed? Nerfing a class to bring into balance another class never fixes anything it just pisses people off. </DIV>

Elspooky_SOE

10-20-2005, 01:30 AM

<DIV> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR> <P>Question: How quickly are reactives usually triggered, and if you were keeping them up, how many triggers will it get in a 10s timeframe? [...] Say you did... reactive, group reactive, reactive again... that's all counting toward one person... how many times would reactives trigger in the 10s a regen would go for... I would imagine it could easily outperform a regen depending on rate of hits.</P> <HR> <P>Good question there... you pretty much described almost every group fight where I'm the sole healer <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Reactives are nice in the fact they "react" every time the target is hit. For example, if I put the singe-target reactive on the tank, and he's getting smacked around by 4 targets (all hitting once each in a two-second span) then the reactive "reacts" 4 times during that two seconds and the heals are applied. And then it's done -- you have to wait the refresh timer to put on a new one. Which can be nerve-wracking at times...</P> <P>The nice thing about the group reactive is that it also is applied to whomever is taking damage; if it's just one person getting hit, all of the heals are applied to that one person [which is very nice in some situations, not so great in others].</P> <P>So fights -- at least for me, we like to go after tough stuff sometimes -- consists of hitting the single reactive, group reactive, single reactive, etc. like a hamster on a feeder bar and spot-healing while waiting for the re-cast timer (it's pretty darn long on the group reactive). If there are multiple mobs beating on the tank, the reactives can definitely go quickly which can definitely be nice. Additionally, the "Fate" line which heals the group when a mob dies is very helpful where there are multiple critters.</P> <P>Regarding the original topic <shrug>... I'm happy with my Templar (wish for a bit more damage capability outside of a group, less fizzles, and a smidge faster re-cast though). I'll always have a place in my group of usual suspects, good to see the developers attempting the nirvana of balance by <EM><FONT color=#ff0066>increasing</FONT></EM> capabilities instead of dumbing them down.</P> <P> </P></DIV>

BenEm

10-20-2005, 01:31 AM

Well personally I dont really care that they made another class better ....but I can back up the OP ....Just got off a 39 Fury and there about were I was as a Temp before LU13 . It was literally wait till yellow cast big heal ...than HOT ...go to bathroom .......come back tank in yellow cast big heal ....cast HOT ...go get coffee hmmm coffee didnt take long enough ...compliment the wife a bit to score points later tonight ....ok Tank yellow cast big heal .....Cast HOT ....take out garbage ...... Definately can say its a laugher ...went back to my 40th Temp couldnt dare leave Keyboard and do keep in mind I like it that way. Furys very boring at the moment ...and keep in mind I never played a Fury for even one second before today ..bud told me over the phone which 2 spells to put on hot keys and the rest is history . <p>Message Edited by BenEmma on <span class=date_text>10-19-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:33 PM</span>

Spite

10-20-2005, 01:48 AM

I would never be sorry. Your class got a boost. Good. Actually Templars should rejoice as it is typical of SOE to bring balance by lessening the high not increasing the lower.

BenEm

10-20-2005, 01:59 AM

I agree 100% Fiftyk....I like their path this time . Personally I would have changed the MoB's not the player base in LU13 because in the end people will find something they dont like in the change of their Char ..for me its the Mez line ... and My Heavy Armor not being the best thing I should wear .None the less I am a fairly casual player and never begrudge another classes boost . I am guilded player that rarely plays with anyone other than guild members so I always have spot in a group or any raids we do . Some others dont have that Luxary (sp?) and will take offence to these changes . I will always love my Temp and always play him regardless of what path they choose for the class ....Besides he's a 50th Lev Armorer :smileywink:

Kelahr

10-20-2005, 04:11 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkxLordxBurn wrote:<BR> <DIV>I think Templers and Furry's are very well balanced as far as healing goes. They just heal differant. Only thing I see Templers needing is an increase in DPS. To the OP why do you think we need a nerf? We have been a broken class since release and now we finaly got fixed. I am sorry but i just dont get it. As far as the upcoming changes go I think it's a nerf becuase changing the timer on regens from 12s to 10s means harder solo play. Not that I care becuase I grp all the time. So how is it you feel we need to be nerfed? Nerfing a class to bring into balance another class never fixes anything it just pisses people off. </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Because, as a fury now there is absolutely no challenge involved in healing a group. And that's exactly what furies despised templars over. They never had to work at a heal, it was just reactive and nap. I think instead of "fixing" it they simply flipped it over. Granted, I don't have a templar, so I can't say for myself how bad it is, but from what I've heard in game from templars its pretty bad. At any rate, it's just wrong to be able to heal so easily and yet add a good level of DPS to the group on top of it all.

Cowdenic

10-20-2005, 04:33 AM

<P>**PLEASE NO PERSONAL ATTACKS**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>10-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:33 AM</span>

Zel

10-20-2005, 04:42 AM

<P>**PLEASE NO PERSONAL ATTACKS**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>10-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:34 AM</span>

DarkxLordxBu

10-20-2005, 05:21 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kelahrim wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkxLordxBurn wrote:<BR> <DIV>I think Templers and Furry's are very well balanced as far as healing goes. They just heal differant. Only thing I see Templers needing is an increase in DPS. To the OP why do you think we need a nerf? We have been a broken class since release and now we finaly got fixed. I am sorry but i just dont get it. As far as the upcoming changes go I think it's a nerf becuase changing the timer on regens from 12s to 10s means harder solo play. Not that I care becuase I grp all the time. So how is it you feel we need to be nerfed? Nerfing a class to bring into balance another class never fixes anything it just pisses people off. </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Because, as a fury now there is absolutely no challenge involved in healing a group. And that's exactly what furies despised templars over. They never had to work at a heal, it was just reactive and nap. I think instead of "fixing" it they simply flipped it over. Granted, I don't have a templar, so I can't say for myself how bad it is, but from what I've heard in game from templars its pretty bad. At any rate, it's just wrong to be able to heal so easily and yet add a good level of DPS to the group on top of it all.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Tell me how are healing is better then Templers right now? No challenge in healing a grp, lol thats a good one. You ever stopped for a second and think maybe its becuase we have been fixed? Before it was a big challenge, now were balanced and heal just as good as any other priest class, which is how it should be. Templers also have another healing line then we do and last I looked Templers DH's were still the most potent in the game. I still believe they are still the best healers in the game not by much though. </P> <P>Yes, our DPS is a higher then theirs but they make up for it with plate armor and better buffs. Great we have a 1200k aoe nuke but it does no good to me when I get interrupted 5 times before i can get it off. Templers are a defensive priest class, Furry's are offensive simple as that. I also think your whole mentality on nerfing one class to fix another is what ruins a game. A simple fix to a Templers DPS would fix a lot things, it may not be perfect but its enough for a quick fix. Heck, they can even up their buffs to make up for it but it sounds like the community wants mroe DPS. I am just not spewing crap out of my mouth either becuase I do have a 34 Templer. I quit this game back in march to play WOW becuase our class was crap. Now we finaly got some love and I am loving the game and you want us to get nerfed again. Wow, I am just baffled by this. </P> <P><BR> </P> <p>Message Edited by DarkxLordxBurn on <span class=date_text>10-19-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:27 PM</span>

Bjerde

10-20-2005, 05:36 AM

"Tell me how are healing is better then Templers right now? No challenge in healing a grp, lol thats a good one. You ever stopped for a second and think maybe its becuase we have been fixed? Last I looked Templers DH's were still the most potent in the game. Before it was a big challenge, now were balanced and heal just as good as any other priest class, which is how it should be. Templers also have another healing line then we do and last I looked Templers DH's were still the most potent in the game. I still believe they are still the best healers in the game not by much though. "No, we do not have another healing line...we have the same as you. Two Instant heals and Two reactive (grp and single). Yes, our Instant heal is big...but has a 3 sec cast with an 11.5 sec recast. Compared to the Fury's 1.5 sec cast and 8 sec recast."Yes, our DPS is a higher then theirs but they make up for it with plate armor and better buffs." Ha ha, my fury takes hits just as well as my Templar....no lie. Better buffs, yes most of the good priests have better buffs. You knew that when you picked the class though : ) Fury has better debuffs."Great we have a 1200k aoe nuke but it does no good to me when I get interrupted 5 times before i can get it off. Templers are a defensive priest class, Furry's are offensive simple as that. I also think your whole mentality on nerfing one class to fix another is what ruins a game. A simple fix to a Templers DPS would fix a lot things, it may not be perfect but its enough for a quick fix. Heck, they can even up their buffs to make up for it but it sounds like the community wants mroe DPS."I have not heard one Templar say they would rather have more DPS over better heals. If Furies are an Offensive priest, should their heals really be the same as a Defensive priest? (just something to think about...not calling nerf)" I am just not spewing crap out of my mouth either becuase I do have a 34 Templer. I quit this game back in march to play WOW becuase our class was crap. Now we finaly got some love and I am loving the game and you want us to get nerfed again. Wow, I am just baffled by this. " and I have a 37 Fury. I rolled a Templar to be the best healer, I rolled a Fury to be a back-up DPS priest. The Fury does way more DPS than the Templar. My 37 Fury does much more damage than my 59 Templar...at their current levels the Fury does more than twice the damage....both have wisdom gear, not Int.I don't care either way, I have both classes to play. I liked the Fury because they are a different role in the group...now I will seriously kick [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] with him. The healing power is fairly balanced.....it is the Utility and the DPS that is better on the Fury.Reactives will always work better. That is just the nature of the beast. Templars are still great, Furys are just really great now : )

DarkxLordxBu

10-20-2005, 07:19 AM

<DIV>I must be missing something here I thought all healers were to be balanced. Templers were not meant to be the end all gods of healing. Asking for more helaing power is not balance among the priest classes. Its been stated several times by the live team that all priest classes heal equally just in differant ways IE regens, wards, reactives. Every templer I know, at least on my server would like to see an increase in DPS. If its more healing power your asking for like it was before 13 I hate to say it but I dont think your gonna get it. More then likely they will balnce it out with a DPS increase or something else or nerf other classes mainly furry's beacuse we seem to be the target as of late and I really dont understand because we have been broke from day one and now we are fixed. I dont know about anyone else but I was sick and tired of being in a grp and hearing them say oh we need a real healer. </DIV>

Bjerde

10-20-2005, 09:10 AM

Yes, to be balanced we would need more DPS or the Fury less.I was just saying there are lots of Templars that would give up the DPS to be the best healer in the game. But, SOE said from the beginning that all priests will be able to heal the same, so that isn't going to happen. I would have liked to see more diversity in the priest classes, but oh well.It has always been kind of wierd to me, I didn't even play EQ1 but I wanted to be the best healer in the game so I picked Templar. From the description it just seemed like they would heal the best. When I rolled the Fury, I knew he wasn't going to be as good a healer but he would be a better nuker by the description....but that was what I wanted. He was/is so much better at solo, and that is one thing I was looking for.I like the classes to be a little different. SOE screwed themselves by saying all healers will heal the same. So they say lets just give them all the same heal numbers, all the same nuke numbers, and similar utilities that are spread out in other classes. Yay, all the same now. Boring to me... but that was thier end goal.So, now the heals are all the same....time to work on the nukes. LOL

Dalchar

10-20-2005, 10:43 AM

<div></div><div></div>Thing is... according to http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=11728&query.id=0#M11728 and lots of people supported and provided info on this thread... Templars have approximately 12 spells (not including emergencies as those were omitted for all classes) to everyone else's 7 or 8 spells that directly affect the HP bar... all independantly as I understand. Where furies buff almost exclusively dps and nukes (only exceptions: enduring breath, sow, and group invis and the variations on concentrations everyone gets, and even those for furies are half dps oriented... 2 of 4 are big INT boosts), it looks like templar buffs etc almost exclusively buff or add healing in one capacity or another. So thus, dps equalization would probably mean that all your additional healing boosts, pacifies, etc would need altered or tossed. One of if not the primary reason fury dps is so high is due to those INT boosts and dps enhancements. It's one of those... if fury dps and dps enhancement is reduced, they're back to being subpar or, just as everyone is screaming about put back as a bland copy of another priest. Clerics seem more damage reaction.... althouhh inquis seem drastically offensive oriented... everything I read makes them seem like a different class entirely except for the reactives <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Thier spells and utility seem to do nearly the opposite of what templar's do, it's quite interesting from what I'm seeing. Part of the templar's problem and boon is that so much of what they have is defensive/healing oriented, thus, everything's agonizingly slow to solo etc. Shamen damage prevention.... wards + slows Druids damage infliction.... damage, where furies are extremely ahead and wardens only behind due to INT buffs (and most of the damage is upfront, dps goes down significantly thelonger the fight), but wardens seem highly anti-magic with wis buffs, wards against magical types of damage and an attempt to bring regenerations into an art form. but a few offensive buff tossed in. There needs to be more differentiation in the classes I think yes, but I don't know that it needs to be at the cost of uprooting what makes the fury the unique difference it has. Since the big problem seems to be solo, (as all those additinal heals don't do you all that much good for killing that solo mob) some form of solo oriented buff would probably be most appropriate. Might be neat to see 5 concentration buff that gives you most of all the benefits of your individual concentration buffs + some sort of high proc rate divine damage. Run around smiting things with your mighty hammer of dewm. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class="date_text">10-19-2005</span> <span class="time_text">11:47 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class=date_text>10-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:06 AM</span>

Timaarit

10-20-2005, 11:11 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Supernova17 wrote:<span> Templars are a working class, with more healing lines and utility than any other Priest as well as having the unique (Cleric) ability to dump our entire healing load instantly to keep up with spam damage. I'm sorry, Templars are not the only healers in this game and I pity that you fail to realize it. We are good, but we are not the ONLY healer in the game. I think it's great that Sony is attempting to give some meaning to the other Priest classes and allow them to be able to come closer to handling the damage we do with ease. Sorry, Templars cannot be the best healers, best dps and best tanks of the Priest class. That is just selfish and ignorant of game balance. </span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Well we are not the best healers, we are the worst dps and we are also the worst priest class at tanking because of the low dps and high interrupt rate. We also take most damage when soloing and the interrupts mean that we cannot even heal ourselves as well in combat as those priests with higher avoidance. Sure the interrupts have been lessened but clerics still get more interruptions than other priests. As a whole, templars are not a working class as it would mean that we are working in both soloing and grouping. Templars are good enough in groups when all you need to do is heal. But as it is, there is now no reason to pick a templar to any group besides healing. There are however very good other reasons to pick up other priest classes. We are not essentially a broken class. But we are not a working one either.</span><div></div>

Timaarit

10-20-2005, 11:19 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Supernova17 wrote:<span>If you don't know the answer to this...... Druid regens TICK over TIME. If the incomming hits cause more damage than the regen can cover..... Templar reactives REACT INSTANTLY. If the incomming hits are rapid, which would cause a Druid to fail, reactives would fire for each hit maintaining a constant wave of healing while the Tank is still waiting for a regen to tick. So to dump the healing loadout instantly is for a mob to hit rapidly, to trigger reactives rapidly and keep up the healing. Rapid hits would no work well if too much damage is done inbetween regens. </span><div></div><hr></blockquote>So mt takes 1000 points damage, my reactive heals for 300 + 250. Druid regens/wards are worse how? Stacked they will heal the damage in 4 to 6 seconds (or prevent it totally) while my reactives will need another hit to heal. And if that hit is bigger than that 300 + 250, mt is still losing healt. Granted, against groups, templars are slightly better as they usually hit more often and for less damage. But against wards this is irrelevant and reactives have very few procs and very long recast. In the long run, regens will actually heal as much as reactives can because reactives will be gone in 5 to 9 hits. Difference between a fury and a templar is that fury casts direct heals while regen is ticking and templar while reactive is down and recast timer is running. Warden needs direct heals while ward is down and recast timer running.</span><div></div>

kenji

10-20-2005, 11:25 AM

<P>funny thing is.. on single heroic, if i cast stun on mobs, then our tank wont have Reactive proc in next 5-8 sec.../grin</P> <P>Templar have 2 direct heal, 1 group heal, 4 on Reactives (52 is actually reactive...which proc when target use power, convert to HP) while Fury have 3 direct heals (special 1 is either 5 or 10 ratio <which is more effective than reactives at adept 3&gt<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />1 group heal, 1 grp heal buff (that heal exclusive amount of hp), 2 regens.</P> <P>Temp does have more way to heal, but proc on chance...which fury can actually cast them...</P> <P>DPS clearly fury went ahead (1900/2200 nuke/aoe with 420 int huh?) while Templar has like 600/350...</P> <P> </P>

Timaarit

10-20-2005, 11:36 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>DarkxLordxBurn wrote:<div>I must be missing something here I thought all healers were to be balanced. Templers were not meant to be the end all gods of healing. </div><hr></blockquote>But furies were? In addition of being the best dps of priest classes? So true, you are missing something. Healers are far from being balanced.</span><div></div>

Timaarit

10-20-2005, 11:39 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:<div></div><div></div>Thing is... according to http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=11728&query.id=0#M11728 and lots of people supported and provided info on this thread... Templars have approximately 12 spells (not including emergencies as those were omitted for all classes) to everyone else's 7 or 8 spells that directly affect the HP bar... all independantly as I understand. <hr></blockquote>Well the fact is that 4 of these 12 are responsible for 95% of the healing. So for 5% healing power we have lost about 70% of our dps compared to furies and all practical utility.</span><div></div>

kenji

10-20-2005, 12:16 PM

<DIV> <DIV>42 Word of Restoration (Group Heal)</DIV> <DIV>42 Crucial Intersession (Group Reactive)</DIV> <DIV>43 Greater Amelioration (Single Heal, small)</DIV> <DIV>43 Shielding Faith (Resist/Ward)</DIV> <DIV>46 Greater Restoration (Single Heal, big)</DIV> <DIV>46 mark of Kings (20% proc 30 hp regen per 2 sec)</DIV> <DIV>47 Glory of Combat (Group Heal Proc, Conc required, 5% proc)</DIV> <DIV>48 Atoning Fate (Proc when mob dead)</DIV> <DIV>49 Involuntary Curate (10% reactive 70 hp heal)</DIV> <DIV>50 Focused Benefaction (15 ticks Reactive)</DIV> <DIV>52 Reverance (Reactive , proc when Target uses power)</DIV> <DIV>54 Grand Intercession (Reactive)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>12 spells, 1 is Resistance Ward which all classes got, Mok is 30 heal, ICurate is 70 heal (i have heard that druids' 200+ regen cannot keep anything alive, and this 2 should be counted? lol)... and they are actually Debuffs...GoC is 5% proc..if u read Coercer , their 50% proc rate is actually ~20%, count 2% like should be alright.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>12 heals down to 8. is this closer to other classes heals now? o.. and Fate line (Proc after mob dead) only useful on multi mobs encounter.. which Group Regen is just about healing 4-5x the amount , double power cost... hm... right.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>fury's scary dps.. hm...just 1900 dd....just 2000 aoe...hm....how classic XD</DIV></DIV>

Cowdenic

10-20-2005, 01:04 PM

<P>Fury group Hot Heals a maximum of 14,400 points.</P> <P>Templar Group reactive heals for 3600 max points.</P> <P>Sounds about equal to me.</P>

SenorPhrog

10-20-2005, 04:56 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Timaarit wrote:</P> <P><SPAN>Well we are not the best healers, we are the worst dps and we are also the worst priest class at tanking because of the low dps and high interrupt rate. We also take most damage when soloing and the interrupts mean that we cannot even heal ourselves as well in combat as those priests with higher avoidance. Sure the interrupts have been lessened but clerics still get more interruptions than other priests.<BR><BR>As a whole, templars are not a working class as it would mean that we are working in both soloing and grouping. Templars are good enough in groups when all you need to do is heal. But as it is, there is now no reason to pick a templar to any group besides healing. There are however very good other reasons to pick up other priest classes.<BR><BR>We are not essentially a broken class. But we are not a working one either.<BR></P></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Timaarit I'm appreciative of the fact you are using a lot of logic in your posting. </P> <P>Here is the problem I can see with the way your thinking in regards to soloing (because very few people would disagree we are functioning in a group). I don't remember SOE ever stating every class is supposed to be able to solo effectively and anyone please feel free to correct me because I'd love to be wrong. Now saying that its obvious by a lot of the things they do that soloing should be a viable part of the game but we can't hold them to something they haven't stated.</P> <P>As far as a "working class" I think thats semantics really. I consider the class "working" just because I can log in every night and play with all my spells working, my head doesn't implode, my PC doesn't crash etc... Does there need to be some tweaks made? I think that may always be the case.</P> <P>It appears they've lowered the interrupts which has lessened a personal headache of mine so as time goes on maybe they will make some more adjustments. I wouldn't say our class isn't working though just have a few "issues" depending on who you ask,<BR></P>

Dalchar

10-20-2005, 07:31 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>kenjiso wrote:<div> <div>42 Word of Restoration (Group Heal)</div> <div>42 Crucial Intersession (Group Reactive)</div> <div>43 Greater Amelioration (Single Heal, small)</div> <div>43 Shielding Faith (Resist/Ward)</div> <div>46 Greater Restoration (Single Heal, big)</div> <div>46 mark of Kings (20% proc 30 hp regen per 2 sec)</div> <div>47 Glory of Combat (Group Heal Proc, Conc required, 5% proc)</div> <div>48 Atoning Fate (Proc when mob dead)</div> <div>49 Involuntary Curate (10% reactive 70 hp heal)</div> <div>50 Focused Benefaction (15 ticks Reactive)</div> <div>52 Reverance (Reactive , proc when Target uses power)</div> <div>54 Grand Intercession (Reactive)</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>12 spells, 1 is Resistance Ward which all classes got, Mok is 30 heal, ICurate is 70 heal (i have heard that druids' 200+ regen cannot keep anything alive, and this 2 should be counted? lol)... and they are actually Debuffs...GoC is 5% proc..if u read Coercer , their 50% proc rate is actually ~20%, count 2% like should be alright.</div> <div> </div> <div>12 heals down to 8. is this closer to other classes heals now? o.. and Fate line (Proc after mob dead) only useful on multi mobs encounter.. which Group Regen is just about healing 4-5x the amount , double power cost... hm... right.</div> <div> </div> <div>fury's scary dps.. hm...just 1900 dd....just 2000 aoe...hm....how classic XD</div></div><hr></blockquote>I didn't say those spells were appropriately strong enough, just that they were there and are heals in one form or another and the ones not DH's or reactives were counting toward utility etc. and probably holding dps down some.... and trying to think of what may be done to either 1 enchance what's there so you don't mind dps loss, or 2 alter them into something else. How all those additional perk heals work and how effective they are seem to vary from one person to the next, some think them fabulous, others think them awful. It's funny though... on one end of the spectrum you hear people screaming how they want to do nothing but heal, then you have others yelling for more dps / utility <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And no matter what people suggest, talk about, etc. they're generally wrong to about half the community and get mocked, flamed etc. when they're just trying to be constructive. The group regen is 3-4x the cost of single target regen and heals less per tick, so will never be casted if it can be avoided when there's less than 3 people getting hit, because you're going to waste a TON of power best spent on something else..thus group regen is situational where as group reactive almost always is worth every power spent. All that scary fury dps is extremely frontloaded and geared toward multi-mob encounters.... big hit very long recast. The only time I manage to reach over 200 is when I manage to cast my AOE and the mobs die within 15s due to mage dps slaughtering everything and they reached over 1k...but that's at 56... my dps is normally around 130 if I'm free to nukes while healing (spammy heals don't always allow for it)... if there's nothing else in the area (to use aoe pet dmg.. adds = bad) and I'm close to mob I can cast ring of fire for anywhere between 50 and 100 dps on average, depending on how long the mob(s) manage to live and resists etc.</span><div></div>

Owlbe

10-20-2005, 08:01 PM

<P> One thing that templars fail to mention in their dps is what their int. is. Furys are THE int buffing class which plays a good sized chunk in our damage output. You can not compare a nuke from priest to priest where one has 200+ int and the other has sub >100 int. Thats just going to make the gap that much wider. </P> <P>Another thing is how many templars pick their training nukes? I have my training aoe that hits for a ton of damage (on a long recast though) at the sacrifice of the heal M2 upgrade but thats my choice but ppl see the huge numbers roll up and comment on how hard I nuke but they don't know the sacrifice I made to get them and the long recast timer behind the next big nuke. I bet 95%+ of all templars have all gone all wis bonus training, all wis bonus items at the expense of other stats, gone all heal spell upgrades first and they wonder why their damage sucks.</P> <P>Change some things around and I bet you'd find a big change.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <p>Message Edited by Omegarhino on <span class=date_text>10-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:03 AM</span>

Bjerde

10-20-2005, 08:19 PM

"I didn't say those spells were appropriately strong enough, just that they were there and are heals in one form or another and the ones not DH's or reactives were counting toward utility etc. and probably holding dps down some.... and trying to think of what may be done to either 1 enchance what's there so you don't mind dps loss, or 2 alter them into something else. How all those additional perk heals work and how effective they are seem to vary from one person to the next, some think them fabulous, others think them awful. It's funny though... on one end of the spectrum you hear people screaming how they want to do nothing but heal, then you have others yelling for more dps / utility And no matter what people suggest, talk about, etc. they're generally wrong to about half the community and get mocked, flamed etc. when they're just trying to be constructive."Templars say that they want more DPS because we know we won't get more healing....cause we can heal good enough. I don't want more DPS, I want more healing....but it won't happen because all priests need to be able to heal the same : )Same nukes, same heals, same debuffs, same buffs, same utility. Maybe they should have just had a Priest class....

Gcha

10-20-2005, 08:27 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Bjerde wrote:<BR><BR>Templars say that they want more DPS because we know we won't get more healing....cause we can heal good enough. I don't want more DPS, I want more healing....but it won't happen because all priests need to be able to heal the same : )<BR><BR>Same nukes, same heals, same debuffs, same buffs, same utility. Maybe they should have just had a Priest class....<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Precisely. Sad, but true.</DIV>

Kelahr

10-20-2005, 08:30 PM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkxLordxBurn wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kelahrim wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkxLordxBurn wrote:<BR> <DIV>I think Templers and Furry's are very well balanced as far as healing goes. They just heal differant. Only thing I see Templers needing is an increase in DPS. To the OP why do you think we need a nerf? We have been a broken class since release and now we finaly got fixed. I am sorry but i just dont get it. As far as the upcoming changes go I think it's a nerf becuase changing the timer on regens from 12s to 10s means harder solo play. Not that I care becuase I grp all the time. So how is it you feel we need to be nerfed? Nerfing a class to bring into balance another class never fixes anything it just pisses people off. </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Because, as a fury now there is absolutely no challenge involved in healing a group. And that's exactly what furies despised templars over. They never had to work at a heal, it was just reactive and nap. I think instead of "fixing" it they simply flipped it over. Granted, I don't have a templar, so I can't say for myself how bad it is, but from what I've heard in game from templars its pretty bad. At any rate, it's just wrong to be able to heal so easily and yet add a good level of DPS to the group on top of it all.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Tell me how are healing is better then Templers right now? No challenge in healing a grp, lol thats a good one. You ever stopped for a second and think maybe its becuase we have been fixed? Before it was a big challenge, now were balanced and heal just as good as any other priest class, which is how it should be. Templers also have another healing line then we do and last I looked Templers DH's were still the most potent in the game. I still believe they are still the best healers in the game not by much though. </P> <P>Yes, our DPS is a higher then theirs but they make up for it with plate armor and better buffs. Great we have a 1200k aoe nuke but it does no good to me when I get interrupted 5 times before i can get it off. Templers are a defensive priest class, Furry's are offensive simple as that. I also think your whole mentality on nerfing one class to fix another is what ruins a game. A simple fix to a Templers DPS would fix a lot things, it may not be perfect but its enough for a quick fix. Heck, they can even up their buffs to make up for it but it sounds like the community wants mroe DPS. I am just not spewing crap out of my mouth either becuase I do have a 34 Templer. I quit this game back in march to play WOW becuase our class was crap. Now we finaly got some love and I am loving the game and you want us to get nerfed again. Wow, I am just baffled by this. </P> <P><BR> </P> <P>Message Edited by DarkxLordxBurn on <SPAN class=date_text>10-19-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:27 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Thanks for exaggerating everything I just said. First of all, I said a small nerf. You're acting like I want to cut it back to where it was. As it stands, I'm healing comparatively to a templar in terms of HP, while my spells regenerate and cast twice as fast. I do not see this as fair. If the difference between templars and furies is the offensive vs. defensive set up, why is it that furies are playing just as good a role at the defensive while retaining our offense?</DIV>

stargazer5678

10-20-2005, 09:42 PM

<DIV> "Because, as a fury now there is absolutely no challenge involved in healing a group."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Huh?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have to chain casts in most cases to keep my tank alive. I don't compain about it, but it's not easy. Things are much more balanced now in the game in general and in the healing department in particular. Furies can't heal for as much as a Templar. That's why we have fast cast heals to keep the tank from dying and 2 seconds later a big templars DH comes in. Something along these lines. Admit it - templars are still better healers, they have higher mitigation as well. Furies do more DPS and have some nice healing abilities that are nice when combined with another priest class. Where is the problem?</DIV>

catweaver

10-20-2005, 10:00 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> stargazer5678 wrote:<BR> <DIV> "Because, as a fury now there is absolutely no challenge involved in healing a group."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Huh?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have to chain casts in most cases to keep my tank alive. I don't compain about it, but it's not easy. Things are much more balanced now in the game in general and in the healing department in particular. Furies can't heal for as much as a Templar. That's why we have fast cast heals to keep the tank from dying and 2 seconds later a big templars DH comes in. Something along these lines. Admit it - templars are still better healers, they have higher mitigation as well. Furies do more DPS and have some nice healing abilities that are nice when combined with another priest class. Where is the problem?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I totally agree with this - I can't agree that there is no challenge to healing for a group anymore - have you tried raiding yet?? I end up chain healing and being constantly LOP. Things have improved a bit with yesterday's LU but it's still not "easy" to heal a full group. </P> <P>For way too long Furies were [Removed for Content] healers; now that we can heal, all I hear is 'bring on the nerfs' and it's really frustrating.</P> <P> </P> <P>Lubij, Ethereal Legacy<BR>60 Fury, Shadowhaven </P> <P><BR> </P>

Xerxess

10-20-2005, 10:14 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> stargazer5678 wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Admit it - templars are still better healers, they have higher mitigation as well. Furies do more DPS and have some nice healing abilities that are nice when combined with another priest class. Where is the problem?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>For the love of god...get off the pitty pot that we have higher mitigation. If you think you should get high DPS because of low mitigation then we want higher heals for our low avoidance. Yes we wear plate and that makes our mitigation high but guess what that also makes our avoidance very low so when a mob hits us he hits hard and every time. Atleast you guys get a slight chance of avoiding the hit.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just because we have high mitigation doesn't mean we aren't going to die just as fast as you...You catch my drift?</DIV>

DarkxLordxBu

10-20-2005, 10:56 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkxLordxBurn wrote:<BR> <DIV>I must be missing something here I thought all healers were to be balanced. Templers were not meant to be the end all gods of healing.<BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>But furies were? In addition of being the best dps of priest classes? So true, you are missing something. Healers are far from being balanced.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Huh, since when did we become healing gods. Templers still have slight advantage in the healing depratment. I still have to chain cast to keep a grp alive.</DIV>

Cowdenic

10-20-2005, 11:11 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> stargazer5678 wrote:<BR> <DIV> "Because, as a fury now there is absolutely no challenge involved in healing a group."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Huh?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have to chain casts in most cases to keep my tank alive. I don't compain about it, but it's not easy. Things are much more balanced now in the game in general and in the healing department in particular. Furies can't heal for as much as a Templar. That's why we have fast cast heals to keep the tank from dying and 2 seconds later a big templars DH comes in. Something along these lines. Admit it - templars are still better healers, they have higher mitigation as well. Furies do more DPS and have some nice healing abilities that are nice when combined with another priest class. Where is the problem?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>as does any other class, nobody has it easy healing and I will tell you, spells just do not get better than what I have, and I still have a time with it sometimes.

Xerxess

10-20-2005, 11:14 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkxLordxBurn wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkxLordxBurn wrote:<BR> <DIV>I must be missing something here I thought all healers were to be balanced. Templers were not meant to be the end all gods of healing.<BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>But furies were? In addition of being the best dps of priest classes? So true, you are missing something. Healers are far from being balanced.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Huh, since when did we become healing gods. Templers still have slight advantage in the healing depratment. I still have to chain cast to keep a grp alive.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Templars have to chain cast to keep groups alive too...its not like we throw up a heal and sit there and watch the battle...we have to chain heal also to keep our group alive...we just look better doing it =P</DIV><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>

kenji

10-21-2005, 06:13 AM

<DIV>well...at least my templar can always find 3 sec free to nuke once every battle....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>it does 400 dmg... but fury doing 1600.......</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i just dont believe button smasher cant find 3 sec free in a battle.. when all are adept 3 / master 1/2 heals</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>edit : not to mention Fury's direct heals are half of Templar's cast time...and 3 on different timers <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by kenjiso on <span class=date_text>10-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:15 PM</span>

Timaarit

10-21-2005, 11:17 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Radar-X wrote:<div></div> <p>Timaarit I'm appreciative of the fact you are using a lot of logic in your posting. </p> <p>Here is the problem I can see with the way your thinking in regards to soloing (because very few people would disagree we are functioning in a group). I don't remember SOE ever stating every class is supposed to be able to solo effectively and anyone please feel free to correct me because I'd love to be wrong. Now saying that its obvious by a lot of the things they do that soloing should be a viable part of the game but we can't hold them to something they haven't stated.</p> <p>As far as a "working class" I think thats semantics really. I consider the class "working" just because I can log in every night and play with all my spells working, my head doesn't implode, my PC doesn't crash etc... Does there need to be some tweaks made? I think that may always be the case.</p> <p>It appears they've lowered the interrupts which has lessened a personal headache of mine so as time goes on maybe they will make some more adjustments. I wouldn't say our class isn't working though just have a few "issues" depending on who you ask,</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Here is my reasoning in soloing: Since it was not said that classes solo differently, all classes should solo equally. In addition in the beginning, soloing was not an option after leaving t1 zones, but now 50% of t6 content is solo. If my class choise 8 months ago effectively prevents me from having fun with 50% of the content, something is seriously wrong. I have talked to some of my guildies, the mages have gained about 80% of their xp soloing while 80% of my xp is from grouping with these people. Then again, I do have some vitality when we group... And I do have a comparison for my self also. I am having a blast while soloing with my monk. I am trying to level him so I can get to DoF zones and do the quests my templar was trying to advance. One more level and the basic stuff is yellow, couldn't even hit them if they were low orange.</span><div></div>

Timaarit

10-21-2005, 11:23 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>DarkxLordxBurn wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> DarkxLordxBurn wrote: <div>I must be missing something here I thought all healers were to be balanced. Templers were not meant to be the end all gods of healing.</div> <hr> </blockquote>But furies were? In addition of being the best dps of priest classes? So true, you are missing something. Healers are far from being balanced.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <div>Huh, since when did we become healing gods. Templers still have slight advantage in the healing depratment. I still have to chain cast to keep a grp alive.</div><hr></blockquote>What makes you think I don't? Withall adept III heals, buffs and utility, I constantly found my templars healing ability to be inadequate at worst and barely sufficient at best. And that meant that if a heal was castable, I casted it. But since reactives work as they do, sometimes I casted a reactive, tank popped to full health and ate the reactive with overhealing and then his health started dropping again while my reuse timers were running.</span><div></div>

Lego

10-21-2005, 05:46 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkxLordxBurn wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkxLordxBurn wrote:<BR> <DIV>I must be missing something here I thought all healers were to be balanced. Templers were not meant to be the end all gods of healing.<BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>But furies were? In addition of being the best dps of priest classes? So true, you are missing something. Healers are far from being balanced.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Huh, since when did we become healing gods. Templers still have slight advantage in the healing depratment. I still have to chain cast to keep a grp alive.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>What makes you think I don't? Withall adept III heals, buffs and utility, I constantly found my templars healing ability to be inadequate at worst and barely sufficient at best. And that meant that if a heal was castable, I casted it. But since reactives work as they do, sometimes I casted a reactive, tank popped to full health and ate the reactive with overhealing and then his health started dropping again while my reuse timers were running.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>None of the furies said you guys didn't. They were responding to the one 'Fury' that said we could pop on a regen and then leave the computer. Which is a blatant mistruth. Our regens do the same thing, they get wasted constantly.</P> <P>Personally, I'm all for Templars having more damage than you have. I've stated time and time again, even having the highest priest damage I can't solo anything that's worth my time. So I've gained all my xp in groups, as I'd imagine, have most templars.</P> <DIV>And about the armor thing, our avoidance is non-existant now, just like your mitigation doesn't matter, so does our avoidance. Every mage I know has a higher avoidance number than me even though I have close to or over 200 agility. I honestly think the armor deal for all priests is broken.</DIV>

Sunlei

10-21-2005, 08:11 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kelahrim wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkxLordxBurn wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kelahrim wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkxLordxBurn wrote:<BR> <DIV>I think Templers and Furry's are very well balanced as far as healing goes. They just heal differant. Only thing I see Templers needing is an increase in DPS. To the OP why do you think we need a nerf? We have been a broken class since release and now we finaly got fixed. I am sorry but i just dont get it. As far as the upcoming changes go I think it's a nerf becuase changing the timer on regens from 12s to 10s means harder solo play. Not that I care becuase I grp all the time. So how is it you feel we need to be nerfed? Nerfing a class to bring into balance another class never fixes anything it just pisses people off. </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Because, as a fury now there is absolutely no challenge involved in healing a group. And that's exactly what furies despised templars over. They never had to work at a heal, it was just reactive and nap. I think instead of "fixing" it they simply flipped it over. Granted, I don't have a templar, so I can't say for myself how bad it is, but from what I've heard in game from templars its pretty bad. At any rate, it's just wrong to be able to heal so easily and yet add a good level of DPS to the group on top of it all.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Tell me how are healing is better then Templers right now? No challenge in healing a grp, lol thats a good one. You ever stopped for a second and think maybe its becuase we have been fixed? Before it was a big challenge, now were balanced and heal just as good as any other priest class, which is how it should be. Templers also have another healing line then we do and last I looked Templers DH's were still the most potent in the game. I still believe they are still the best healers in the game not by much though. </P> <P>Yes, our DPS is a higher then theirs but they make up for it with plate armor and better buffs. Great we have a 1200k aoe nuke but it does no good to me when I get interrupted 5 times before i can get it off. Templers are a defensive priest class, Furry's are offensive simple as that. I also think your whole mentality on nerfing one class to fix another is what ruins a game. A simple fix to a Templers DPS would fix a lot things, it may not be perfect but its enough for a quick fix. Heck, they can even up their buffs to make up for it but it sounds like the community wants mroe DPS. I am just not spewing crap out of my mouth either becuase I do have a 34 Templer. I quit this game back in march to play WOW becuase our class was crap. Now we finaly got some love and I am loving the game and you want us to get nerfed again. Wow, I am just baffled by this. </P> <P><BR> </P> <P>Message Edited by DarkxLordxBurn on <SPAN class=date_text>10-19-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:27 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Thanks for exaggerating everything I just said. First of all, I said a small nerf. You're acting like I want to cut it back to where it was. As it stands, I'm healing comparatively to a templar in terms of HP, while my spells regenerate and cast twice as fast. I do not see this as fair. If the difference between templars and furies is the offensive vs. defensive set up, why is it that furies are playing just as good a role at the defensive while retaining our offense?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> You kindof seem to have a strange agenda over fury regens. Yeah they changed them and upped regens to about 65% of what they were pre-combat revamp. Remember they cut healing in half for the revamp <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And defensive/offensive role 'just as good'...all the furys spells were reduced in power,recast time doubled, or just plain removed. Anyways its not furys who are the 'regen kings' what do they have 3 regens to use and do all 3 stack? or is it 2 regens that will stack only with self for furys? Theres the 'other' healing class that has 6 or is it 7 stacking regens now. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Perhaps its to good for *you* if you're a 60 fury...well those close to 60 spells and such won't get hit with nurf bat untill the 60-70 spells come into play. And thats for all classes who are 60.</P> <P>I think soe should do away with all the recast timers for heals for all healing classes. The casting timers and power costs are enough of a restriction on what heals are used.</P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P>

Danter

10-21-2005, 08:28 PM

<P>Look what SOE did to the 2 pure classes in the game:</P> <P><U>Templar</U>:</P> <P>0 DPS</P> <P>Low Utility</P> <P>Balanced healing</P> <P> </P> <P><U>Guardian</U>:</P> <P>Low DPS</P> <P>0 Utility</P> <P>Balanced tanking</P> <P> </P> <P>Notice a trend? SOE needs to fix both these classes because at the moment, they balanced what they were good at and didn't improve anything else. In fact, Templar DPS is worse at 60 now then it was at 50 pre LU 13. Equal healing is fine, but you better balance everything else.</P> <P>For the argument that DPS isn't important when you're the only healer in the group is pure crap. A semi-decent healer can easily keep the entire group alive (It's just one guy, the MT) and have time to drop nukes and debuffs as they come up. Considering healers never go below 50% power now in groups, there's no need to conserve power anymore.</P> <P>Soloing as a Templar is painful. Soloing is 40% of the game, so don't give me that BS as "Templars shouldn't solo, you know what you were getting into." That's total crap. Unless you fight undead and your mastery mob, you might as well not even bother to do it. Parsing at a stellar 60 DPS at lvl 60 is absurd. Where the hell is my damage shield since Druids can heal just as well now? Why the hell do all my spells take 3-4s to cast when Druid's cast and recast time are less?</P> <P>Templar DPS is a flat out joke and needs to be increased drastically for them to be balanced.</P>

Kendricke

10-21-2005, 08:39 PM

What is a "pure" class, again? Last I checked, there are no hybrids in Everquest II. That's an Everquest Classic term.

Danter

10-21-2005, 08:46 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR>What is a "pure" class, again? Last I checked, there are no hybrids in Everquest II. That's an Everquest Classic term. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Pre LU 13, Guardians were the pure tank class and Templars were the pure heal class. Pure means the best, giving up most/all utility and DPS to achieve it. This was a fact even though SOE claimed it was never their intention.</P> <P>Post LU 13, Guardians and Templars are no longer a pure class, which is fine but they are still broken. Refer to my post above.</P><p>Message Edited by Danterus on <span class=date_text>10-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:48 AM</span>

SenorPhrog

10-21-2005, 08:52 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Here is my reasoning in soloing: Since it was not said that classes solo differently, all classes should solo equally. In addition in the beginning, soloing was not an option after leaving t1 zones, but now 50% of t6 content is solo. If my class choise 8 months ago effectively prevents me from having fun with 50% of the content, something is seriously wrong.<BR><BR>I have talked to some of my guildies, the mages have gained about 80% of their xp soloing while 80% of my xp is from grouping with these people. Then again, I do have some vitality when we group...<BR><BR>And I do have a comparison for my self also. I am having a blast while soloing with my monk. I am trying to level him so I can get to DoF zones and do the quests my templar was trying to advance. One more level and the basic stuff is yellow, couldn't even hit them if they were low orange.<BR></SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Was it stated that classes solo differently in SWG? EQ1? WoW? I can't remember any game having the courage to actually go out there and say "Look some of these classes are going to suck to solo with..." The solo content was a big complaint of a lot of people and even they agreed they over did it the first time and made some adjustements. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'll admit its hard for me to agrue that soloing with Templars is easy but I don't really play any other classes but a Conjurer and my Conjurer is only in the mid 20's.</DIV>

Kendricke

10-21-2005, 09:28 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR><BR> I can't remember any game having the courage to actually go out there and say "Look some of these classes are going to suck to solo with..." <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV><EM>That said, soloing isn't meant to necessarily be equally efficient for everyone. Just as some classes have a lot of benefits they bring to a group, some classes have ablilites that work exceptionally well for soloing. But we've worked hard to ensure that everyone can solo if they chose to do so. </EM> -<A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=134146&query.id=0#M134146" target=_blank>Moorgard, September 13, 2005</A></DIV>

SenorPhrog

10-21-2005, 09:57 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR><BR>I can't remember any game having the courage to actually go out there and say "Look some of these classes are going to suck to solo with..." <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV><EM>That said, soloing isn't meant to necessarily be equally efficient for everyone. Just as some classes have a lot of benefits they bring to a group, some classes have ablilites that work exceptionally well for soloing. But we've worked hard to ensure that everyone can solo if they chose to do so. </EM> -<A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=134146&query.id=0#M134146" target=_blank>Moorgard, September 13, 2005</A></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Alright let me qualify that for you then. I can't remember any game having the courage to actually go out there and say "Look <insert class> is going to suck to solo with...."</P> <P>I remember that statement and it was a tricky one. Which group do we fit in Kendricke? That statement tells me we are supposed to be inefficient to solo with? Do we bring more benefits to a group than a scout or fighter or mage or even another priest class? </P> <P> </P>

Danter

10-21-2005, 10:13 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> Do we bring more benefits to a group than a scout or fighter or mage or even another priest class? </BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>No, no, no, no if one healer is already present.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In an xp or quest group, which is composed of 90% of the game, you only need 1 healer. Since all healers can keep a group alive with no problems anymore, there's no reason why a group would want to take a Templar over a Fury, Inquistor, or any other "offensive" priest.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Healer's should have an offensive stance like Tanks and Scouts do to equate this. When in offensive stance, the Healer's damage spells does significantly more, but their heals do significantly less. This would solve every problem assuming Furies still didn't out DPS out 10:1.</DIV>

Kendricke

10-21-2005, 10:29 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Danterus wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> Do we bring more benefits to a group than a scout or fighter or mage or even another priest class? </BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>No, no, no, no if one healer is already present.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In an xp or quest group, which is composed of 90% of the game, you only need 1 healer. Since all healers can keep a group alive with no problems anymore, there's no reason why a group would want to take a Templar over a Fury, Inquistor, or any other "offensive" priest.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Healer's should have an offensive stance like Tanks and Scouts do to equate this. When in offensive stance, the Healer's damage spells does significantly more, but their heals do significantly less. This would solve every problem assuming Furies still didn't out DPS out 10:1.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Are you having issues getting groups?</DIV>

DarkxLordxBu

10-21-2005, 11:18 PM

No offense but why would anyone pick a healer if you wanted to solo? This isn't just aimed at Templers but all priest calsses in general. If you choose a healer to solo with I am sorry but thats your own fault. I often duo and can do almost all of the solo content and grp content as well.

Danter

10-21-2005, 11:47 PM

<BR> <DIV>I don't know about you, but when you're in a group with a Fury, Templar (yourself), Wizard, Warlock, Beserker, Conjurer and you see these numbers when parsing, it's kind of ridiculous:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Zone is PoF killing multi-mob groups. Average stats from one of my parses.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Battle time - 33s</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fury -> 380 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Beserker -> 550 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Wizard -> 650 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Warlock -> 700 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Conjurer -> 400 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Conjurer's Pet -> 500 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templar -> 75 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And the healing is the exact same (or very close to it).</DIV>

bigmak20

10-21-2005, 11:56 PM

<P>**PLEASE NO PERSONAL ATTACKS**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>10-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:20 PM</span>

Kendricke

10-22-2005, 12:09 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Danterus wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>I don't know about you, but when you're in a group with a Fury, Templar (yourself), Wizard, Warlock, Beserker, Conjurer and you see these numbers when parsing, it's kind of ridiculous:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Zone is PoF killing multi-mob groups. Average stats from one of my parses.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Battle time - 33s</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fury -> 380 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Beserker -> 550 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Wizard -> 650 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Warlock -> 700 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Conjurer -> 400 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Conjurer's Pet -> 500 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templar -> 75 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And the healing is the exact same (or very close to it).</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What was the parse on the healing? What other spells did you cast besides your heals? What buffs did you have up?

SenorPhrog

10-22-2005, 12:13 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Danterus wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>I don't know about you, but when you're in a group with a Fury, Templar (yourself), Wizard, Warlock, Beserker, Conjurer and you see these numbers when parsing, it's kind of ridiculous:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Zone is PoF killing multi-mob groups. Average stats from one of my parses.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Battle time - 33s</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fury -> 380 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Beserker -> 550 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Wizard -> 650 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Warlock -> 700 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Conjurer -> 400 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Conjurer's Pet -> 500 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templar -> 75 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And the healing is the exact same (or very close to it).</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You really do need to check the healing but as for the DPS....this didn't really shock you did it?<BR>

Jida

10-22-2005, 12:20 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Danterus wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>I don't know about you, but when you're in a group with a Fury, Templar (yourself), Wizard, Warlock, Beserker, Conjurer and you see these numbers when parsing, it's kind of ridiculous:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Zone is PoF killing multi-mob groups. Average stats from one of my parses.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Battle time - 33s</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fury -> 380 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Beserker -> 550 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Wizard -> 650 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Warlock -> 700 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Conjurer -> 400 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Conjurer's Pet -> 500 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templar -> 75 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And the healing is the exact same (or very close to it).</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What was the parse on the healing? What other spells did you cast besides your heals? What buffs did you have up? <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I'm going to go out on a limb and say that healing wasnt an issue. Usually fights that fast dont require heavy healing. And with 2 healers in the above group each would cast 1 heal (reactive and HOT). and then start the nuking. I've done this as a solo healer in groups and not broken 100 dps in any regard. My testing was against the ^^^ Channel cleansers and the fights lasted 20-30 seconds. My DPS numbers were a bit different due to the players style, levels, and classes. But the overall picture was roughly the same (insert a warrior (dps never went over 100 either) and remove fury, Insert Necro and remove Conj).</P> <P> </P> <P>Hopefully this is clear. I am currently working with combat stats and trying to get the darn thing stable on my comptuer. it seems to crash alot, which is irriatting. I will post database statistics when i have a larger pool of data.</P> <P>Till then.. I kinda Agree with the numbers that Danterus posted. I see nearly the same results.</P> <P>Elder</P>

Kendricke

10-22-2005, 12:55 AM

<P>Was that a best case then? Because I know Furies have some specific spells that will do dramatic amounts of damage, but have very, very long recasts and high power costs. In short fights, yes, that's one heck of an advantage over a Templar, but in longer drawn out fights, will the Fury be able to keep us such casting? In a longer fight will Fury heals be anywhere close to ours?</P> <P>The more answers I try to find, the more complicated I realize the issues is. Yes, DPS is an issue for us, but only when we start pushing against Furies. Compared to wardens, mystics, and even defilers, I'm not aware that the diversity is so pronounced.</P> <P> </P>

Jida

10-22-2005, 01:00 AM

<P>I cant run parses for other types without grouping with them. I</P> <P> </P> <P> might try to start a group of all healers, 1 tank.. and see how the dps parses from that.. that would be a fun fights.. LOL</P> <P>I'll see if guildies will help me after the raids tonight =)))</P> <P> </P> <P>Elder</P> <P> </P>

Danter

10-22-2005, 01:38 AM

<P>Fury would cast regen on Beserker. I would cast a reactive. Beserker would pull. Most battles, the Beserker's health never left green because the mob's were dead or being stunned/stifled so fast.</P> <P>Fury and myself were equal level (55) and were chain casting our DPS stuff because we were both aware of the parsing.</P> <P>Fury was using Bolt of Storms, which was averaging 1k per cast. This spell has a 15s recast timer.</P> <P>Fury was using Starfire (aoe), which was averaging 800 x 4 = 3.2k per cast. This spell has a 20s recast timer.</P> <P>Fury was using Watersprout (dot), which was averaging 700 per cast. This spell has an 8s recast timer.</P> <P>Fury also had damage shield and procs that were helping the Beserker's DPS. I would approximate both of these were adding an additional 30 DPS to the Zerker.</P> <P>I was using Consecrated Strike, Condeming Smite, Warring Conviction, and Rays of Faith. You guys know the damage and recast on our spells, so I'm not going to look through my logs and post that.</P> <P>If you don't think Templars have DPS problems, then all I can say is ignorance must be bliss.</P><p>Message Edited by Danterus on <span class=date_text>10-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:41 PM</span>

Kendricke

10-22-2005, 01:49 AM

<P>No one said we didn't have low DPS. It's pretty much established fact that Templars have the lowest DPS of just about any class. What's up for discussion is how our healing and healing utility stack up against other priests which have utility based around other functionalities.</P> <P> </P>

Lego

10-22-2005, 02:06 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>No one said we didn't have low DPS. It's pretty much established fact that Templars have the lowest DPS of just about any class. What's up for discussion is how our healing and healing utility stack up against other priests which have utility based around other functionalities.</P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The parse would also be easier to examine if you posted total damage per fight as well as 'dps'. Short fights are typically a very bad measurement of overall damage effectiveness.

zorbdan

10-22-2005, 02:27 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>No one said we didn't have low DPS. It's pretty much established fact that Templars have the lowest DPS of just about any class. What's up for discussion is how our healing and healing utility stack up against other priests which have utility based around other functionalities.</P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So .... what are they going to do about this ''established'' DPS issue ? Both items are up for discussion because at this point to my knowledge niether are being addressed.

Kendricke

10-22-2005, 02:44 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zorbdan wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>No one said we didn't have low DPS. It's pretty much established fact that Templars have the lowest DPS of just about any class. What's up for discussion is how our healing and healing utility stack up against other priests which have utility based around other functionalities.</P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So .... what are they going to do about this ''established'' DPS issue ? Both items are up for discussion because at this point to my knowledge niether are being addressed. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>As far as the developers communications on the subject go, we're intended to have the lowest DPS. This was the case prior to the revamp and it's remained so after. In fact, in the list of DPS tiers which was released during Desert of Flames Beta, Templars were listed in the lowest tier for damage output.</P> <P> </P>

zorbdan

10-22-2005, 03:08 AM

<DIV>Ok I'll accept the fact Templars are supposed to be the worst. Templars are supposed to be the worst and Furies are supposed to be the best, so be it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok now who wants to play a Templar !? Raise your hand !</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How can they upgrade other priests healing and not give Templars something in return ? How is that justified ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SOE is playing the ''Flavor of the month'' game and I for one don't like that game very much.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Is this some ploy to spark sales of furies and other flavor of the month classes on station exchange ? :smileytongue:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Kendricke

10-22-2005, 03:16 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zorbdan wrote:<BR> <DIV>Ok I'll accept the fact Templars are supposed to be the worst. Templars are supposed to be the worst and Furies are supposed to be the best, so be it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok now who wants to play a Templar !? Raise your hand !</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How can they upgrade other priests healing and not give Templars something in return ? How is that justified ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SOE is playing the ''Flavor of the month'' game and I for one don't like that game very much.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Is this some ploy to spark sales of furies and other flavor of the month classes on station exchange ? :smileytongue:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Even upgraded, the other classes aren't touching us in healing.

Kiara-

10-22-2005, 03:22 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zorbdan wrote:<BR> <DIV>Ok I'll accept the fact Templars are supposed to be the worst. Templars are supposed to be the worst and Furies are supposed to be the best, so be it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok now who wants to play a Templar !? Raise your hand !</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How can they upgrade other priests healing and not give Templars something in return ? How is that justified ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SOE is playing the ''Flavor of the month'' game and I for one don't like that game very much.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Is this some ploy to spark sales of furies and other flavor of the month classes on station exchange ? :smileytongue:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Sweetie. This is far from constructive. Templars are not meant to be the worst, nor Furies the best. We're meant to be as equal as possible. </FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>These kinds of posts will not help to better our classes position or address the real issues.</FONT></P>

Dalchar

10-22-2005, 06:02 AM

<DIV>Well, you can toss lots of numbers around as far as dps, you can even throw on healing numbers... but... those numbers won't show: how much power you used, how much less healing you had to do due to certain buffs or debuffs, how much you overhealed, or if your group was saved because they had sufficient hp to take the hits in the first place, the gear of the people playing (regen, how much power they used etc), the quality of theirs or your spells, the quality of the gear of the person you're healing, heals that didn't count toward your total because they were proc'd etc... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A big part of the problem in pointing to furies and saying "that's not fair!" is because 95% of what they have can easily be qualtified and calculated and tossed into a parser and understood as a number, but a lot of other priest's abilities, aren't... such as... how do you quantify a knockdown/knockback proc from a warden spell? Or a stun... you won't see that in a heal parse or a dps parse... or a mez/pacify... I'm convinced a lot of things are considered "useless" because it doesn't have a great parseable effect that can be quantified.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class=date_text>10-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:03 PM</span>

Kelahr

10-23-2005, 10:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Lego23 wrote: <P></P> <P>They were responding to the one 'Fury' that said we could pop on a regen and then leave the computer. Which is a blatant mistruth. Our regens do the same thing, they get wasted constantly.</P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Aww, apostraphes. I'm flattered. I'm officially kicked out of the 'real Fury' club. Mazeltov. As for my 'blatant mistruth', I'm afraid it's nothing of the sort. Partying with a berzerker of my own level, fighting blue ^^^ monsters, with adept I regen, I can. If I use my debuff, all I have to do is wait until the zerker hits yellow HP, toss on my regen, and relax. Between the evasion buffs, and the accuracy debuffs, the zerker stays alive. Mind you, I did this *before* they increased the HP to be equal to a reactive. I had an extra 2-4 seconds, don't remember how much was removed, to twiddle my thumbs, maybe spin my chair around and hurl insults at my cats for no apparent reason. Either way, it isn't a heck of a lot of work.</P> <P>If your regens are being wasted, you really should stop using them before the tank has low enough HP to make use of them. That's like putting the lid on your coffee before you pour. Wards/Reactives before damage, Regens after :/</P> <DIV>If, for some reason, the regens somehow manage to not cut it, one heal from the elixer line usually does the trick.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Sunlei wrote: <P>You kindof seem to have a strange agenda over fury regens. Yeah they changed them and upped regens to about 65% of what they were pre-combat revamp. Remember they cut healing in half for the revamp <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And defensive/offensive role 'just as good'...all the furys spells were reduced in power,recast time doubled, or just plain removed. Anyways its not furys who are the 'regen kings' what do they have 3 regens to use and do all 3 stack? or is it 2 regens that will stack only with self for furys? Theres the 'other' healing class that has 6 or is it 7 stacking regens now. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P></P> <HR> <P><BR>No, no agenda. I do, however, think that the most recent change is ridiculous and un-called for, and think it should be put back. But that's not some evil agenda, it's common sense. It was fine how it was. But at any rate, my problem more lies in the comparison between Templars and Furies now, rather than individual fury spells. Templars were nerfed hard, and they didn't deserve it. <STRONG>If my class can keep a group alive with ease, there's absolutely</STRONG> <STRONG>no reason</STRONG> <STRONG>the one "pure" healer class should not be able to as well. </STRONG>Templars, being what they are, aren't going to receive major DPS enhancements. They aren't going to get better offensively, at least not by much. The only place there is any room for improvement is their healing. From my perspective, as a Fury, Templars are at a severe disadvantage. This is all coming from the 50+ templars I've talked to on my server, Neriak, and my experiences grouping with Templars.</P> <P>Furies:<BR>High Avoidance (fewer interrupts.)<BR>Uber Healage being played by even the simplest of simpletons.<BR>Decent DPS<BR>Critter Forms (60 free stamina and agility ftw -guesstimating, too lazy to load up character.)<BR>Poor Utility abilities (at least as far as healing is concerned.)<BR>Almost as high mitigation in light armor as Templars in heavy, with none of the downers of wearing heavy.</P> <P>Templars:<BR>Fizzle, Fizzle, Interrupt, Fizzle, Interrupt, /death.<BR>Decent Healage, <STRONG>almost</STRONG> as good as a Fury here if they Templar really knows how to play.<BR>Nonexistant DPS (no room for argument here.)<BR>Lack of decent self-buffs, makes soloing even more difficult.<BR>Uber Utilities.<BR>Heavy armor that doesn't save them from anything. Hurray.<BR><BR>The one obvious advantage I can see Templars as having are their utility abilities. Furies have poor utilities as far as healing goes. But these really don't make up for the differences here. Especially because I have superior "ordinary" heals, that recharge and cast twice as quickly. </P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><p>Message Edited by Kelahrim on <span class=date_text>10-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:53 AM</span>

Dalchar

10-23-2005, 12:21 PM

About the only time I can just toss a regen on and let it go is when the tank is almost fully fabled. and generally it's even con or lower to the tank.. this is at L57 with all adept3s and masters up to that point. Fighting through poet's palace I'm consistantly healing (nukes very occassional, and using all heals at my disposal as they were all very necessary) a mostly-fabled 60 zerker...and if it's not fabled it was cobalt. I needs to go and see some of the more difficult content beyond that but how much you heal is just as much dependant on the tank as the priest. If you're able to just toss a regen and let it go, chances are, so can a cleric toss on a reactive in a good 80%+ of the time. I'd blame your tanks for the mindless ability to heal <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> There's dramatic differences when gear quality and tank level is taken into account. <div></div>

DarkxLordxBu

10-23-2005, 01:14 PM

<DIV>Templers heal better then Furry's plain and simple. I have no clue how the idea that furry's are all of a sudden uber healers came about. On a side note furry's do more damage then Templers. </DIV><p>Message Edited by DarkxLordxBurn on <span class=date_text>10-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:16 AM</span>

Elend

10-23-2005, 10:27 PM

<div></div><font color="#cc99ff" face="Comic Sans MS">Sweetie. This is far from constructive. Templars are not meant to be the worst, nor Furies the best. We're meant to be as equal as possible. </font> <p><font color="#cc99ff" face="Comic Sans MS">These kinds of posts will not help to better our classes position or address the real issues. </font></p> <p>How is it logical for everyone to be equal, what then is the point of 3 classes and 6 subblasses of priests? so we can have different class titles? COOL! </p> <p>As many people have said before, what is the point of being a templar if we are meant to heal the same? The way i see it, is there absolutely HAS to be atleast 1 well defined healing class in any one game that can handle the big things like raids ... and maybe even groups ... and without a doubt be designated this role. When 6 classes are supposed to heal 'equally' that totally defeats the purpose. </p> <p>I also dont know about other templars, I DO NOT WANT MORE DPS. I simply want more healing, for all i care they can take away the little utility we have. </p> <p>I am also not saying that druids and shamans need to be nerfed, i am saying that their roles in groups need to be changed though. </p> <p> Edit: heh, i guess i dont know how to quote properly, that was said by kiara. </p> <div></div><p>Message Edited by Elendae on <span class=date_text>10-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:28 AM</span>

Gcha

10-23-2005, 10:46 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elendae wrote:<BR> <P> </P> <P>I also dont know about other templars, I DO NOT WANT MORE DPS. I simply want more healing, for all i care they can take away the little utility we have.</P> <P><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Bingo. Word for word. We signed up to be TEMPLARS, not some patchwork of whatever was left over.</DIV>

kenji

10-24-2005, 06:04 AM

<P>the fact is, Templar cannot have more Healing - or the new myth of balanced healing will be gone.</P> <P>so... we dont want more dps, cant have more heals, dont need more subpar utilities....we are done.</P> <P> </P> <P>who actually think they will create templar in future for fun alt?</P> <P>------------</P> <P>[edit] on Direct Heals balance, the Fury's new Ancient Spell is the most uber spell atm...</P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>148 Power Cost, 1.5 sec cast, 6.0 recast, Heals target for 1250-1528 at 50% hp or below, 625-764 above 50% hp.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>used right, the ratio is >8.45, which is way passed any classes' direct heals... and the recast is almost half of Templar's big heals...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>another special heal funs , the new-fixed Regen from Warden</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Wild Regrowth (master 2): 153 power cost, heals 338-413 instantly and every 2 sec. for 10 sec duration.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>6 ticks of 413 = 2478 heals... which has passed our 54 M2 Reactive total amount of heals...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>no 1 getting close to Templar's healing ability? doubt it </DIV><p>Message Edited by kenjiso on <span class=date_text>10-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:15 PM</span>

markdy

10-24-2005, 07:24 AM

<DIV>As stated earlier.... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Our buffs make up for what we lack. We aren't meant to have good DPS, and I hope we never do. Our healing is still the best in the game. The Glory of Combat spell adds a [expletive haxx0red by Raiscript]load of healing power.</DIV>

Goozman

10-24-2005, 07:54 AM

<P>Dalcharis is one person to hit the nail on the head. Furies have moderate buffs, but crappy debuffs. They don't have stuns or stifles (the ae hate reducer thing has a short duration stifle, if you want to count that). They have 2 slow damage spells with high damage to allow the spammage of heals inbetween. Since fights in this game are so easy, and damage classes have such godly high damage, the fights are over in a matter of seconds, and because the Fury has those slow high damage nukes, the parsers show a high number... cuz dps wasn't a factor in the fight.</P> <P>Through extensive (and I mean exteeensive) research, I've found that over longer periods of time, priest damage balances (with equal INT levels, of course). Not to be perfectly equal, mind you... it ends up similar to Moorgard's damage list, except Inquisitors are ahead of both Shaman and under Warden. Furies will always be ahead because of a huge bonus to INT, and the ability to cycle another spell in, but they arent vastly ahead. Templar shine on undead mobs, as you know; there are an abundance of undead in the game (especially the expansion) and no elementals, nightbloods, or shadowmen. A Templar slightly passes Warden dps on undead mobs, but stays a bit under Fury, even though only one spell does bonus damage to undead. The problem with all this is that battles don't last very long at all.</P> <P>Everyone needs to stop throwing "dps" around, because it has lost it's meaning.. damage per second. Furies don't have great damage per second, they have great spell damage. The damage per second is only marginally better than other priests. A Fury's utility is doing extra damage, and buffing damage. A Templar's utility is HP buffing, hit rate buffing, bonus healing power, and minor stun capabilities as far as I know. Like Dalcharis said, you can't parse that Templar utility... but you can parse the Fury's.</P> <P>I hope I didn't lose my point during writing this. If anything needs to be changed, it is (and some are gonna hate me) that mobs need to hit harder so that there is more of a challenge added to healing in a group. That way you would be able to see the difference in healing between priests, but as it is now... it's fairly easy for anyone to heal unless the tank is bogus.</P><p>Message Edited by Goozman on <span class=date_text>10-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:56 PM</span>

Danter

10-24-2005, 05:16 PM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Goozman wrote:<BR> <P>Through extensive (and I mean exteeensive) research, I've found that over longer periods of time, priest damage balances (with equal INT levels, of course). Not to be perfectly equal, mind you... it ends up similar to Moorgard's damage list, except Inquisitors are ahead of both Shaman and under Warden. Furies will always be ahead because of a huge bonus to INT, and the ability to cycle another spell in, but they arent vastly ahead. Templar shine on undead mobs, as you know; there are an abundance of undead in the game (especially the expansion) and no elementals, nightbloods, or shadowmen. A Templar slightly passes Warden dps on undead mobs, but stays a bit under Fury, even though only one spell does bonus damage to undead. The problem with all this is that battles don't last very long at all.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This isn't true at all. Quoting my post from earlier. Furies damage spells:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bolt of Storms, which was averages 1k per cast. This spell has a 15s recast timer.</DIV> <DIV> <P>Starfire (aoe), which was averages 800 x 4 = 3.2k per cast. This spell has a 20s recast timer.</P> <P>Watersprout (dot), which was averages 700 per cast. This spell has an 8s recast timer.</P> <P>Furies chain casting these spells can hit 180 DPS with no problem at all, add in their damage shield and procs which is at least 30 DPS in a 1 minute fight and the Fury does about 3-5 times more damage than the Templar</P> <P>On really short aoe fights when the Warlock uses aoes, the Fury can break 500-600 DPS.</P> <P>In a fight that lasted 1 minute, single target, the Fury can cast BoS 4 times, Starfire 3 times, and Watersprout 7 times.</P> <P>4k + 2.4k + 4.9k = 11.3k / 60s = 188.333 DPS + 30 DPS = 210.333 DPS</P> <P>The Fury can also group invis, SoW, shapeshift, buff mitigation by an insane amount with Porcupine which is tremondously usefull in raid/nameds situations, shorter cast times, shorter recast times, less interrupts.</P></DIV> <DIV>Even in the most ideal situation, a Templar can never come anywhere near to hitting 180 DPS. The Templar also adds 0 damage capabilities to the group unlike the Fury who has damage shield and damage procs. If the Templar fights undead, their DPS will go from about 50-60 in a long fight to about 75-80.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, I know for a fact that Templars do not out heal Furies 3 to 1. It's more like 1.1 to 1, if there is even an advantage at all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The reason I, and many other Templars, keep bringing up DPS is because we know SOE's intention was to have everyone heal equally, so they will not up our healing. We need them to up our damage so we are on par with Furies and other priests.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Danterus on <span class=date_text>10-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:22 AM</span>

Kendricke

10-24-2005, 07:58 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elendae wrote:<BR> <P>As many people have said before, what is the point of being a templar if we are meant to heal the same? The </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The assumption being made here is that the intention of 6 different subclasses is to be "the same" in primary function. We're not. Priests are quite different in their ability to perform the primary function. However, all priests are able to perform the basic primary function against a certain standard - this does not mean all priests are limited to that standard. </P> <P>Just because there's a lowest common denominator here, doesn't mean we're all bound to remain there. Templars heal MUCH better than Furies, in part due to our additional utility heal spells (Mark, Involuntary, Fate, etc.)</P> <P><BR> </P>

Goozman

10-24-2005, 11:12 PM

<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Danterus wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>This isn't true at all. Quoting my post from earlier. Furies damage spells:</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bolt of Storms, which was averages 1k per cast. This spell has a 15s recast timer.</DIV> <DIV> <P>Starfire (aoe), which was averages 800 x 4 = 3.2k per cast. This spell has a 20s recast timer.</P> <P>Watersprout (dot), which was averages 700 per cast. This spell has an 8s recast timer.</P> <P>Furies chain casting these spells can hit 180 DPS with no problem at all, add in their damage shield and procs which is at least 30 DPS in a 1 minute fight and the Fury does about 3-5 times more damage than the Templar</P> <P>On really short aoe fights when the Warlock uses aoes, the Fury can break 500-600 DPS.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>In a fight that lasted 1 minute, single target, the Fury can cast BoS 4 times, Starfire 3 times, and Watersprout 7 times.</FONT></P> <P>4k + 2.4k + 4.9k = 11.3k / 60s = 188.333 DPS + 30 DPS = 210.333 DPS</P> <P>The Fury can also <FONT color=#66ff00>group invis</FONT>, SoW, shapeshift, buff mitigation by an insane amount with <FONT color=#66ff00>Porcupine</FONT> which is tremondously usefull in raid/nameds situations, shorter cast times, shorter recast times, less interrupts.</P></DIV> <DIV>Even in the most ideal situation, a Templar can never come anywhere near to hitting 180 DPS. The Templar also adds 0 damage capabilities to the group unlike the Fury who has damage shield and damage procs. If the Templar fights undead, their DPS will go from about 50-60 in a long fight to about 75-80.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, I know for a fact that Templars do not out heal Furies 3 to 1. It's more like 1.1 to 1, if there is even an advantage at all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The reason I, and many other Templars, keep bringing up DPS is because we know SOE's intention was to have everyone heal equally, so they will not up our healing. We need them to up our damage so we are on par with Furies and other priests.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Danterus on <SPAN class=date_text>10-24-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:22 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>In a one minute fight, a Fury can cast Bolt of Storms 3 times, Starfire 2 times, and Waterspout 5 times, and that is being extremely time efficient. And unless your previous post, which I may or may not look at, has actual spell data for the priests with a given INT value (which I included in my research, since I can see all the spells in my recipe book), then yur data is merely overdramatized speculation. In my research I compared level 50 versions of Priests, using all adept 3 spells, with an INT value of 278. I found the most efficient amount of time for calculating total spell damage was 26 seconds (where a fury just got a 2nd SoS off, giving the Fury a nice boost), but I can easily extend it. For the average damage of each spell I did (min + max)/2. This was vs a single mob and obviously assuming that the average damage was done every time, with no full resists.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Post 50, Inquisitor, Mystic, and both Druid classes move ahead on damage ranking with their new damage spells (Warden gets the biggest boost, Mystic with the smallest, but Fury still ends up ahead of everyone), while Defiler and Templar still maintain the same ratio as previous tiers; so obviously the difference in "dps" between the classes who got a new separate damage spell, and those who didn't, increases post 50.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'll give you group invis and the mitigation in Porcupine as uncalculable Fury utility that I didn't mention before, but it doesn't go much beyond that. The less interrupts thing isn't true, just try watching any non-stunning/non-rooting priest solo, it is pretty ridiculous.</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Edit: Ok, I thought I should add what the results were :smileytongue: Only gonna use Templar and Druids. Seince Fury was the highest let's use them as 100% of Priest damage potential.</SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Fury: 100% - Warden: 85% - Templar: 58%. So yes, we see a desparity here; now when you make the mob they were fighting undead, Fury and Warden stay the same, however the Templar becomes 92%.</SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Fury was 115 dps over 26 seconds, Warden was 98 dps, Templar was 67 dps/105 vs undead. Now you can skew the numbers by increasing the given time. At 22 seconds, the Fury got off a second Strike of Storms, leaving their big nuke hibernating till 41 seconds. During that time, the Fury's dps drops steadily, while the others' do not.</SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text>In the end, you all need INT. And if you asked for a damage increase, then you'd be making Fury buffing pointless. You will never be in line with Fury damage unless you have INT gear, are grouped with a Fury (casting the verve line on you) and Illusionist, and you were comparing yourself to a Fury outside of your group.</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Goozman on <span class=date_text>10-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:43 PM</span>

Timaarit

10-25-2005, 11:17 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Elendae wrote: <div></div> <p>As many people have said before, what is the point of being a templar if we are meant to heal the same? The </p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>The assumption being made here is that the intention of 6 different subclasses is to be "the same" in primary function. We're not. Priests are quite different in their ability to perform the primary function. However, all priests are able to perform the basic primary function against a certain standard - this does not mean all priests are limited to that standard. </p> <p>Just because there's a lowest common denominator here, doesn't mean we're all bound to remain there. Templars heal MUCH better than Furies, in part due to our additional utility heal spells (Mark, Involuntary, Fate, etc.)</p><div></div><hr></blockquote>You still failed to mention a point for being a templar. 5% is not much BTW.</span><div></div>

kenji

10-25-2005, 12:23 PM

<DIV>good timed fury nukes at lvl 60 can do 4 BoS, 3 Starnova, 4 full watersprout, 3 full killing swarm for dps, at adept 3 each nuke:</DIV> <DIV> --Average Dmg-- </DIV> <DIV> BoS 1365.5 (280 int)</DIV> <DIV> Starnova 1582 (224 int)</DIV> <DIV> Watersprout 837.5 (234 int)</DIV> <DIV> Killing Swarm 637.5 (234 int) </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>total average dmg per min = 16945.5, dmg per sec = 282.425....w/o HO</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i couldnt find a way to keep/pass 200 dps as a templar even vs undead for 1 min...with 90 int cant even break 150 on Single Mob... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>side-note : 280 int BoS avg dmg = 1365.5, 420 int BoS avg dmg 1424.5...less than 5% more dmg..</DIV><p>Message Edited by kenjiso on <span class=date_text>10-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:26 AM</span>

Cowdenic

10-25-2005, 03:31 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Goozman wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Danterus wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>This isn't true at all. Quoting my post from earlier. Furies damage spells:</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bolt of Storms, which was averages 1k per cast. This spell has a 15s recast timer.</DIV> <DIV> <P>Starfire (aoe), which was averages 800 x 4 = 3.2k per cast. This spell has a 20s recast timer.</P> <P>Watersprout (dot), which was averages 700 per cast. This spell has an 8s recast timer.</P> <P>Furies chain casting these spells can hit 180 DPS with no problem at all, add in their damage shield and procs which is at least 30 DPS in a 1 minute fight and the Fury does about 3-5 times more damage than the Templar</P> <P>On really short aoe fights when the Warlock uses aoes, the Fury can break 500-600 DPS.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>In a fight that lasted 1 minute, single target, the Fury can cast BoS 4 times, Starfire 3 times, and Watersprout 7 times.</FONT></P> <P>4k + 2.4k + 4.9k = 11.3k / 60s = 188.333 DPS + 30 DPS = 210.333 DPS</P> <P>The Fury can also <FONT color=#66ff00>group invis</FONT>, SoW, shapeshift, buff mitigation by an insane amount with <FONT color=#66ff00>Porcupine</FONT> which is tremondously usefull in raid/nameds situations, shorter cast times, shorter recast times, less interrupts.</P></DIV> <DIV>Even in the most ideal situation, a Templar can never come anywhere near to hitting 180 DPS. The Templar also adds 0 damage capabilities to the group unlike the Fury who has damage shield and damage procs. If the Templar fights undead, their DPS will go from about 50-60 in a long fight to about 75-80.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, I know for a fact that Templars do not out heal Furies 3 to 1. It's more like 1.1 to 1, if there is even an advantage at all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The reason I, and many other Templars, keep bringing up DPS is because we know SOE's intention was to have everyone heal equally, so they will not up our healing. We need them to up our damage so we are on par with Furies and other priests.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Danterus on <SPAN class=date_text>10-24-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:22 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>In a one minute fight, a Fury can cast Bolt of Storms 3 times, Starfire 2 times, and Waterspout 5 times, and that is being extremely time efficient. And unless your previous post, which I may or may not look at, has actual spell data for the priests with a given INT value (which I included in my research, since I can see all the spells in my recipe book), then yur data is merely overdramatized speculation. In my research I compared level 50 versions of Priests, using all adept 3 spells, with an INT value of 278. I found the most efficient amount of time for calculating total spell damage was 26 seconds (where a fury just got a 2nd SoS off, giving the Fury a nice boost), but I can easily extend it. For the average damage of each spell I did (min + max)/2. This was vs a single mob and obviously assuming that the average damage was done every time, with no full resists.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Post 50, Inquisitor, Mystic, and both Druid classes move ahead on damage ranking with their new damage spells (Warden gets the biggest boost, Mystic with the smallest, but Fury still ends up ahead of everyone), while Defiler and Templar still maintain the same ratio as previous tiers; so obviously the difference in "dps" between the classes who got a new separate damage spell, and those who didn't, increases post 50.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'll give you group invis and the mitigation in Porcupine as uncalculable Fury utility that I didn't mention before, but it doesn't go much beyond that. The less interrupts thing isn't true, just try watching any non-stunning/non-rooting priest solo, it is pretty ridiculous.</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Edit: Ok, I thought I should add what the results were :smileytongue: Only gonna use Templar and Druids. Seince Fury was the highest let's use them as 100% of Priest damage potential.</SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Fury: 100% - Warden: 85% - Templar: 58%. So yes, we see a desparity here; now when you make the mob they were fighting undead, Fury and Warden stay the same, however the Templar becomes 92%.</SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Fury was 115 dps over 26 seconds, Warden was 98 dps, Templar was 67 dps/105 vs undead. Now you can skew the numbers by increasing the given time. At 22 seconds, the Fury got off a second Strike of Storms, leaving their big nuke hibernating till 41 seconds. During that time, the Fury's dps drops steadily, while the others' do not.</SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text>In the end, you all need INT. And if you asked for a damage increase, then you'd be making Fury buffing pointless. You will never be in line with Fury damage unless you have INT gear, are grouped with a Fury (casting the verve line on you) and Illusionist, and you were comparing yourself to a Fury outside of your group.</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Goozman on <SPAN class=date_text>10-24-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:43 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And this was all done against Single targets where as we know Furies actually do the worst with. Now make it linked group encounters and you will see them Druids (Furies) shine.

Goozman

10-25-2005, 08:22 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR> <DIV>good timed fury nukes at lvl 60 can do 4 BoS, 3 Starnova, 4 full watersprout, 3 full killing swarm for dps, at adept 3 each nuke:</DIV> <DIV> --Average Dmg-- </DIV> <DIV> BoS 1365.5 (280 int)</DIV> <DIV> Starnova 1582 (224 int)</DIV> <DIV> Watersprout 837.5 (234 int)</DIV> <DIV> Killing Swarm 637.5 (234 int) </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>total average dmg per min = 16945.5, dmg per sec = 282.425....w/o HO</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i couldnt find a way to keep/pass 200 dps as a templar even vs undead for 1 min...with 90 int cant even break 150 on Single Mob... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>side-note : 280 int BoS avg dmg = 1365.5, 420 int BoS avg dmg 1424.5...less than 5% more dmg..</DIV> <P>Message Edited by kenjiso on <SPAN class=date_text>10-25-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:26 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>You just can't do BOS 4 times and Nova 3 times in 1 minute. If you don't get any casting times crossed, u can get a 4th BOS on the 60th second, but in order to get a third Nova, You'd also have to be getting it on the 59th second. You can't cast multiple spells at the same time; well Furies can't anyway. So if you made it 65 seconds you can add another Nova... but then you don't get another nuke for a while. If spells could cast instantly we could do 5 BoS, 4 Novas, 8 Waterspouts, 2 Rings of Fire; boy that would be fun.</DIV>

Goozman

10-25-2005, 08:28 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Cowdenicus wrote:<BR><BR>And this was all done against Single targets where as we know Furies actually do the worst with. Now make it linked group encounters and you will see them Druids (Furies) shine. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>And how would you suggest I calculate comparable Priest data with groups of mobs, where the mobs are often different tiers? You can't just calculate the AE's as x3 every time, because not all mobs die at the same time. I don't know what you expect</DIV>

Cowdenic

10-26-2005, 01:08 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Goozman wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Cowdenicus wrote:<BR><BR>And this was all done against Single targets where as we know Furies actually do the worst with. Now make it linked group encounters and you will see them Druids (Furies) shine. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>And how would you suggest I calculate comparable Priest data with groups of mobs, where the mobs are often different tiers? You can't just calculate the AE's as x3 every time, because not all mobs die at the same time. I don't know what you expect</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>If you are big enough I will take you to Poets Palace, There is a zone filled with all the data collection mobs you could possibly need. Everything from the small mobs at 56 and 57 to the bigger 62s and even a few 65's thrown in for fun. Just let me know when you are ready.

Goozman

10-26-2005, 01:20 AM

I like how condescending you are. Makes anything you say not credible ( >_> ). Yes I've been. And your post didn't resolve anything [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]<p>Message Edited by Goozman on <span class=date_text>10-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:22 PM</span>

Cowdenic

10-26-2005, 01:28 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Goozman wrote:<BR> I like how condescending you are. Makes anything you say not credible ( >_> ). Yes I've been. And your post didn't resolve anything [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] <P>Message Edited by Goozman on <SPAN class=date_text>10-25-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:22 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Not condescending, just trying to help you, because obviously, your lack of different targets to test against tells me, that you were doing one of two things. You either A. had no idea where to group to get the information you needed, or B. You were intentionally trying to skew the results using a less than honest means. I am hoping for A, but seeing as how you are so quick to accuse maybe it was B.

Dalchar

10-26-2005, 01:31 AM

Nor should you calculate starnova into single target dps, it's abhorrantly mana inefficient that no fury in their right mind would do unless it's just outright boredom and just because. The sheer size of the AOE and recast time makes any comparisons with AOEs for most anyone out the window, as some priests may be able to cast twice while the fury may not and how many mobs are left up at individual times... AOEs are awful comparisons.

Cowdenic

10-26-2005, 01:34 AM

<P>well if you are looking for Max DPS, then you would need to cast it, that being said, he should have begun with say 100 fights, mixed them up roughly 50/50 groups vs. ^^^ Only then will you start to get a clear picture of the DPS fallacy.</P> <P>P.S. Furies and Templars are both in the bottom tier, our DPS should be nearly equal.</P>

Goozman

10-26-2005, 01:42 AM

<DIV>First of all, the thing i said that was censored was w t f, so I wasn't calling u a swear word. And yeah I accuse you of that easily, based on what you said... and all your other posts for that matter. You are not a credible source of information ever, and you are completely condescending and overdramatic.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Dalcharis, if you start a fight with BoS, then WS, KS, then u can stick in an AE while just slightly overlapping WS's recast timer. So although extremely inefficient against one target, it is still a large boost in damage that's not entirely time inefficient. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My research isn't from grouping, because grouping in itself will skew numbers. It is from raw spell data and parsed scenarios. Like I said, it assumes the caster is not taking damage, every spell does it's average listed damage (min+max)/2, and there are no full resists. So any alternate abilities on a spell aren't in my calculations (a warden's resist debuffs on their DoT, a templar's pacify, inquisitor's mental resist debuff on their dot, etc). I suppose I can just assume that 3 mobs are present throughout the entire given time frame of my parsing, but that wouldn't be realistic, and would obviously be skewed in favor of Furies and Wardens. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Note: Also, my research included = INT values. The number was 278 at the time.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Goozman on <span class=date_text>10-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:11 PM</span>

Dalchar

10-26-2005, 02:02 AM

<P>Course, when you use AOEs as comparisons, numbers get further skewed by what other classes are present and what they casted. And to boot, if you're going to do a comparison, you need to factor INT into the equation... as INT buffing is one of the fury's prime buffing points, it'd be like comparing power pools and ignoring a warden's mega-wis buffs. How much we nuke for is due to a secondary effect of our utility--(nearly 200 extra INT from buffs alone makes a HUGE difference, just ask any mage), kinda like clerics generally would have to heal less due to more side healing procs and extra mitigation buffs and large hp buffs.</P> <P>If we wanna boil everything down to dps... well...</P> <P>How much dps would you consider your extra mitigation buffs to be worth.</P> <P>How much dps would you consider your larger hp buffs to be worth.</P> <P>How much dps would you consider your healing procs to be worth.</P> <P>How much dps would you consider any other stat buffs you have to be worth.</P> <P>Point being, it's not 100% about shear nuke size, it's also about various utilities and making comparable differences between the classes. There's a sizeable difference between templar and fury and the rest-- which I think is a good thing. I it's just time to look at what all the other priests do better than others, take a look at them and see what could be improved.</P> <P>now, everyong /HUGGLES</P>

Cowdenic

10-26-2005, 02:34 AM

Well since Templar Specialty heals are no longer equal, due to druids extra proc on solo target one, and up to 27 extra procs on group one, I think we should have more utility. Pretty simple.

Suite

10-26-2005, 02:51 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR> <DIV>well...at least my templar can always find 3 sec free to nuke once every battle....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>it does 400 dmg... but fury doing 1600.......</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i just dont believe button smasher cant find 3 sec free in a battle.. when all are adept 3 / master 1/2 heals</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>edit : not to mention Fury's direct heals are half of Templar's cast time...and 3 on different timers <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ffcccc size=2>Good points. And if you've grouped with a fury or a warden you know that they do a heckuva lot more damage than even some of the other classes in the group. My guardian was grouped with my templar friend, warden, monk, and a couple of scouts a few weeks ago (after LU13, before LU15) and the warden consistenly did the highest single damage of everyone in the group, including the swashy.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ffcccc size=2>Something's wrong with that.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ffcccc size=2>But our warden was having a blast.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ffcccc size=2>Hehe, that was a pun. A blast, get it?</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ffcccc size=2>/giggles and runs off,</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ffcccc size=2>Suite</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ffcccc size=2><IMG src="http://img284.imageshack.us/img284/6175/eliana054qz.jpg"><BR></FONT></P>

Suite

10-26-2005, 02:55 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Even upgraded, the other classes aren't touching us in healing. </BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ccffff size=2>Have you read the notes for LU15 yet? We have EQUAL HEALING ABILITY.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ccffff size=2>Equal means EQUAL. Remember the = sign in basic math equations?</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ccffff size=2>That need to triumph is scary. Have you had it checked lately?</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ccffff size=2>Suite</FONT></P> <P><IMG src="http://img284.imageshack.us/img284/6175/eliana054qz.jpg"></P> <P><BR> </P>

Dalchar

10-26-2005, 03:03 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Cowdenicus wrote:<BR>Well since Templar Specialty heals are no longer equal, due to druids extra proc on solo target one, and up to 27 extra procs on group one, I think we should have more utility. Pretty simple. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>hehe how do you balance instant reaction over the course of virtually no time at all to 20s as needed versus happening over a given timeframe? With mobs generally hitting more often but for less, *probably* have a general advantage. But that's a development decision and anyone's guess as to the reasoning and both sides can argue until they're blue in the face! However don't forget that a regen won't do any good being reapplied within the same 10s where a reactive can be reapplied for more healing in the same timeframe. The group regen is only ever fully effective if 2-3 people are getting healed, which isn't so with group reactive. I think due to shear mechanics of how the heals work it's hard to balance them evenly and be able to do so within the limits of coding and w/o coming up with convoluded descriptions.</P> <P>I just don't think you can say a flat "increase dps" without looking at the other spells temps do have and how effective they are or aren't, as higher dps is the fury's utility. </P> <P>I hope I make sense and sound reasonable. Not trying to keep the templar down but trying to be constructive and keep some things in mind.<BR></P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Dalchar

10-26-2005, 03:08 AM

<DIV>I wonder how useful a chart detailing things such as... mitigation buffing, hp buffing, etc might be for further comparisons of what is and isn't useful to be considered. I'm sure SOE has them somewhere.</DIV>

Cowdenic

10-26-2005, 04:06 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Cowdenicus wrote:<BR>Well since Templar Specialty heals are no longer equal, due to druids extra proc on solo target one, and up to 27 extra procs on group one, I think we should have more utility. Pretty simple. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>hehe how do you balance instant reaction over the course of virtually no time at all to 20s as needed versus happening over a given timeframe? With mobs generally hitting more often but for less, *probably* have a general advantage. But that's a development decision and anyone's guess as to the reasoning and both sides can argue until they're blue in the face! However don't forget that a regen won't do any good being reapplied within the same 10s where a reactive can be reapplied for more healing in the same timeframe. The group regen is only ever fully effective if 2-3 people are getting healed, which isn't so with group reactive. I think due to shear mechanics of how the heals work it's hard to balance them evenly and be able to do so within the limits of coding and w/o coming up with convoluded descriptions.</P> <P>I just don't think you can say a flat "increase dps" without looking at the other spells temps do have and how effective they are or aren't, as higher dps is the fury's utility. </P> <P>I hope I make sense and sound reasonable. Not trying to keep the templar down but trying to be constructive and keep some things in mind.<BR></P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>And unless you are fighting huge groups 4 or more, odds are your solo reactive will last 10 seconds. Your efficiency for group heal is equalled at exactly 1.6 people in group for group heal. So call it 2. 3 or more, assuming all are missing some portion of life means your heal is stronger.<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Higher DPS is not even close to the only utility furies have, and we are all in the same DPS tier. Hence are Damage should be near equal.</DIV>

kenji

10-26-2005, 05:51 AM

<P>0-3 sec BoS, 3.5-7.5 sec Starnova, 18-21 sec BoS, 27.5-31.5 Starnova, 36-39 sec BoS, 51.5-55.5 Starnova, 56-59 BoS...</P> <DIV>impossible?</DIV>

Dalchar

10-26-2005, 06:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR> <P>0-3 sec BoS, 3.5-7.5 sec Starnova, 18-21 sec BoS, 27.5-31.5 Starnova, 36-39 sec BoS, 51.5-55.5 Starnova, 56-59 BoS...</P> <DIV>Impossible?</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I say yes for 99% of the time, and for very good reason, that every templar will feel and understand and prolly laugh and agree with!!!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>*Fizzle* *Fizzle* *you begin to cast...* *Interrupted* *Fizzle*!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah if you're talking a solo situation, it is impossible due to fizzles and interrupts, and in a group, in the event that the mob lasts that long, very very unlikely due to fizzles. Heals are worse, I can cast twice as fast and recover about 20% faster to fizzle more! Now, if every spell were "blue" where you never fizzled it... then sure... otherwise, nah...and actually at 60 AOE would be even and still fizzle. A single fizzle throws all of that out the window, or resist... and I think magic's one of the more common higher resisted... sure seems that way sometimes. So sure, it's POSSIBLE, but for all practical reasonable purposes ie 95%+ of the time, even with zero resists, no.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But then, since when do we talk about practical application when trying to say how wonderful XXX is compared to YYY. Far too often we're almost talking apples and oranges as we're trying to look at one aspect without regard for other aspects. XXX may be crummy due to ZZZ but proves remarkably useful under situation Alpha Formation Mark 2!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Furies nuke for too much!" But that's because they buff INT for upwards of 200 essentially making an Adept 1 a Master 1. "Templar heals are HUGE!" Did you notice the recast timer? "Wardens have so much more power it's sick!" Did you forget their huge wis buffs? "No fair, they add equal mitigation on this buff to ours!" Did you forget your additional mitigation buff and far superior HP buffs? "Their specialty heal is too good!" Did you forget that yours can do this and that? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Zeroing in on specific aspects w/o taking into consideration others and real-time application makes for a lot of smoke.</DIV>

kenji

10-26-2005, 07:22 AM

<DIV>yeah...fizzle rate....yeah right...i count 50% fizzle rate...still way higher than templar...we dun have less fizzle rate than fury... your nuke fizzle every 15/20 sec, Templar fizzle every 3/9 sec...who fizzle more per min? /grin</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>yeah right Interrupt issue, i remember Templar has longer cast time on heal, less avoidance...talk abt interrupt i think Templar will have more interrupt than Fury in any case.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>yeah right...200 more int make u adept 1 to master 1...220 int jump to 420 int only 4.5% more dmg...your adept 1 and master 1 is same quaility..right? my smite from adept 1 jump to master 1 added almost 100 dmg...from 300 to 400 ...~33% add...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i cant find more AC buffs in my spell book...any specific spell i missed except Valor?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>far more superior HP buff... how abt Druid's far more superior Power buff? or far more superior Power Regen that offer by Spirit of the Bat? (98 more power per min in combat regen)</DIV><p>Message Edited by kenjiso on <span class=date_text>10-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:24 PM</span>

KingOfF00LS

10-27-2005, 10:22 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kelahrim wrote:<BR> <DIV>I was one of the many furies that complained months ago when our class was suffering. All I really wanted was a slight boost so I could keep a group alive almost as well as a templar. Not as well, just almost. I have more DPS, I don't want to heal quite as well. But as things tend to go, SOE completely over-reacted to all of the fury complaining, and now we have this mess with templars. I feel bad about it, and I just wanted to say, here's one fury hoping for a nerf, or at least a templar boost. It isn't fair that my class has taken over healing to this degree. I don't see how some furies can scoff at the templar's problems after being nerfed themself for so very long. Furies, of all people, should know better. At any rate, here's hoping for a fix to this problem.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I just stumbled on this thread and haven't read through it, but wanted to say....</P> <P>Don't feel bad for wanting something improved for your class. I know I would never hold something like that against you. A great many of us are just hoping that something is done to balance the Templars now. It's the yes-men that sensible people get annoyed with.</P> <P>Thanks for the note though, mate <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P></P>

Kendricke

10-27-2005, 10:46 PM

<P></P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Suite wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Even upgraded, the other classes aren't touching us in healing. </BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ccffff size=2>Have you read the notes for LU15 yet? We have EQUAL HEALING ABILITY.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ccffff size=2>Equal means EQUAL. Remember the = sign in basic math equations?</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ccffff size=2>That need to triumph is scary. Have you had it checked lately?</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ccffff size=2>Suite</FONT></P> <P><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Here's a link to the notes for Live Update 15: <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=stat&message.id=203" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=stat&message.id=203</A></P> <P>Please quote where the phrase "equal healing ability" was used. In fact, please quote any instance of the word "equal" throughout the entire post. The closest you'll find is "as much as", referencing how much health a druid's regeneration will heal per tick compared against cleric reactives. </P> <P>Regenerations are heals <EM>over time.</EM> Reactives are heals which occur <EM>at the moment</EM> damage is taken. It's apples and oranges. I can heal burst damage MUCH easier than a druid using just reactives, since my reactives will fire off as quickly as damage comes in. </P> <P>Whether your prefer one or the other, or which type works better in different situations is up for debate. However, those are not "equal" spell lines by any means. Comparable? Yes. Equal? No.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

bigmak20

10-27-2005, 11:21 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p></p> <blockquote> <hr> Suite wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Kendricke wrote: <blockquote>Even upgraded, the other classes aren't touching us in healing. </blockquote> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p><font color="#ccffff" face="Comic Sans MS" size="2">Have you read the notes for LU15 yet? We have EQUAL HEALING ABILITY.</font></p> <p><font color="#ccffff" face="Comic Sans MS" size="2">Equal means EQUAL. Remember the = sign in basic math equations?</font></p> <p><font color="#ccffff" face="Comic Sans MS" size="2">That need to triumph is scary. Have you had it checked lately?</font></p> <p><font color="#ccffff" face="Comic Sans MS" size="2">Suite</font></p> <p></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Here's a link to the notes for Live Update 15: <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=stat&message.id=203" target="_blank">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=stat&message.id=203</a></p> <p>Please quote where the phrase "equal healing ability" was used. In fact, please quote any instance of the word "equal" throughout the entire post. The closest you'll find is "as much as", referencing how much health a druid's regeneration will heal per tick compared against cleric reactives. </p> <p>Regenerations are heals <em>over time.</em> Reactives are heals which occur <em>at the moment</em> damage is taken. It's apples and oranges. I can heal burst damage MUCH easier than a druid using just reactives, since my reactives will fire off as quickly as damage comes in. </p> <p>Whether your prefer one or the other, or which type works better in different situations is up for debate. However, those are not "equal" spell lines by any means. Comparable? Yes. Equal? No.</p> <hr></blockquote> If you don't see equal spelled out as E-Q-U-A-L it doesn't mean equal? You've posted that kind of inanity all over and it's ridiculous. </span><p></p>

Timaarit

10-28-2005, 11:37 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote <p>Here's a link to the notes for Live Update 15: <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=stat&message.id=203" target="_blank">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=stat&message.id=203</a></p> <p>Please quote where the phrase "equal healing ability" was used. In fact, please quote any instance of the word "equal" throughout the entire post. The closest you'll find is "as much as", referencing how much health a druid's regeneration will heal per tick compared against cleric reactives. </p> <p>Regenerations are heals <em>over time.</em> Reactives are heals which occur <em>at the moment</em> damage is taken. It's apples and oranges. I can heal burst damage MUCH easier than a druid using just reactives, since my reactives will fire off as quickly as damage comes in. </p> <p>Whether your prefer one or the other, or which type works better in different situations is up for debate. However, those are not "equal" spell lines by any means. Comparable? Yes. Equal? No.</p> <hr></blockquote>Yes yes, we know that you are stuck with SoE's statement about healing. The point is that it is in no way balanced, fair nor fun from clerics point of view. Bad decisions like this can and need to be changed regardless of which 'authority' has made them. Your only defence has been that particular statement. I have asked you several times why a group should pick up a templar instead of any other healing class and you have failed to mention a single reason. If you are in a xp group, which would you prefer 200dps or 5% better healing? And remember that you already know that you dont generally need healing exept in rare situations.</span><p></p>

darkshm

10-31-2005, 06:08 AM

<div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote></blockquote>Yes yes, we know that you are stuck with SoE's statement about healing. The point is that it is in no way balanced, fair nor fun from clerics point of view. Bad decisions like this can and need to be changed regardless of which 'authority' has made them. Your only defence has been that particular statement. I have asked you several times why a group should pick up a templar instead of any other healing class and you have failed to mention a single reason. If you are in a xp group, which would you prefer 200dps or 5% better healing? And remember that you already know that you dont generally need healing exept in rare situations.</span><p></p><hr></blockquote> In my experience potency and type of buffs play a large role in choosing what sort of priest is desirable in a group, moreso in a raid. I can think of MANY situations in which groups and raids would prefer Templar buffs to Fury buffs, and I'm sure you can as well. "Also remember that we already know that we don't generally need healing in most situations in xp groups?" The best xp'ing I see is generally one-group instances and/or grinding through yellow heroics, healing is absolutely necessary a good chunk of that time in my experience. I'm not arguing that the Templars don't have some good points but when you start actually blaming the Furies (whether or not you admit to it) for your troubles it's time for a breather. The Wardens were running around screaming in a panic, building their arcs and planning to set sails two by two for the verdant shores of Blizzard not three weeks ago. Now they're mostly back to licking things best not licked and happily smelling each others' behinds. Lickity split (heh). Come on people, post your numbers, make your points, stop hatin'. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And please keep in mind that if you demand we calculate Starnova's damage multiple times in a fight over a sixty second period it means that: a) we're obviously being hit by multiple mobs (perhaps not including the first cast) while trying to cast a four-second cast spell (which I often try 2-3 times and then give up on after my third 1.5 - 2.5 seconds into it interruption - and no I'm not exagerating) and b) subsequent castings will likely be hitting fewer mobs as they die off, lowering its damage.</span><p>Message Edited by darkshmoo on <span class=date_text>10-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:41 AM</span>

Skydude

10-31-2005, 06:57 AM

<DIV>**PLEASE NO PERSONAL ATTACKS**</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am a pro-templar person but your arguements have no validation. Your lil experiments are one-sided and skewed. You quoted once that you'll do your parsing your way, well I can make numbers go my way. I do not want to say myself that reactives vs. HoT are better or less. I will not condone or hype either. When a fury has the most DPS of any healer, do any of you think a direct heal let alone a small heal should even be comparable? Mystics have been neglected more so than any healer class. They draw aggro in the most simplistic situation. Sony should have worked on that long ago more so than changing wardens, templar, or fury. There is no doubt in my mind that they are the most neglected class. So if any of you have a problem with any of the updates, feel free to think exactly what a Mystic has to go through with drawing aggro and you will never play on</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm a Templar and I do say I can out heal most anyone, but fix what's broke, not what works.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Peace</DIV><p>Message Edited by Raijinnstein's Monster on <span class=date_text>10-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:02 AM</span>

Timaarit

10-31-2005, 12:21 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>darkshmoo wrote:<span> Come on people, post your numbers, make your points, stop hatin'. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And please keep in mind that if you demand we calculate Starnova's damage multiple times in a fight over a sixty second period it means that: a) we're obviously being hit by multiple mobs (perhaps not including the first cast) while trying to cast a three-second cast spell (which I often try 2-3 times and then give up on after my third 1.5 - 2.5 seconds into it interruption - and no I'm not exagerating) and b) subsequent castings will likely be hitting fewer mobs as they die off, lowering its damage.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by darkshmoo on <span class="date_text">10-30-2005</span> <span class="time_text">08:13 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Well here is a number, templars have one 2 sec cast time nuke and the rest are 3s. So try calculating how much we get interrupted. And like said, our damage potential is less than 50% of furies. It is 50% when fighting solo mobs and far less when fighting groups since we have only one small damage group nuke. So if you claim you damage is calculated falsely, I can say that so is ours. The calculation was theoretical damage in favorable conditions. While soloing, templars get interrupted far more often than furies since we are a plate wearing caster class and thus cannot avoid hits.</span><div></div>

Kendricke

10-31-2005, 09:11 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>Bad decisions like this can and need to be changed regardless of which 'authority' has made them. Your only defence has been that particular statement. I have asked you several times why a group should pick up a templar instead of any other healing class and you have failed to mention a single reason. <BR><BR>If you are in a xp group, which would you prefer 200dps or 5% better healing? And remember that you already know that you dont generally need healing exept in rare situations.<BR></SPAN> <P></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's not my only defense, and simply putting words in my mouth doesn't make it so. </P> <P>I'm still chosen over other priests in my guild because I still heal better. Sure, in some situations, Furies and their DPS will be more desirable to some groups. In other situations, with other groups, a Templar is a much better fit. It all depends on what you're fighting, where you're fighting, and who you're fighting next to.</P> <P>What HAS changed is the fact that Furies in my Guild are no longer relegated to soloing as the only viable means of experience gain on many nights. Previous to the combat revamp, many groups within my guild would not trust a Fury or even a Mystic as a solo healer for a group. Those Furies would have to wait for groups to find a Templar...AND require additional burst healing in order to be considered as a secondary healer. Now, Furies can actually keep groups alive in many more situations. </P> <P>Honestly, if I was a monk in a group based around magic DPS and had room for one healer, I'd take a Fury over any other priest as well. Yet, if I was a Guardian or Paladin in a melee heavy group, I'd take a Templar before any other. It's situational now. We're still best overall, but at least now other priests don't sit on the sidelines while groups form up around Guardians and Templars (then fill in the other spots). </P> <P>I know what I bring to a group. I know how much my Glory of Combat brings in; how much my debuffs increase group DPS; and how much more healing I can bring a group within a 10 second burst than other classes. You may dismiss our passive healing options as negligible or not worth it, but I don't. I know why I play a Templar. I know what I get out of the class. I know my role. </P> <P>We're not the gods-among-healers that we once were. However, we're still the best healers in more situations. </P> <P><BR> </P>

kenji

11-01-2005, 06:42 AM

<DIV>Difference between Now and Pre-vamp is : now u dont have to need Templar's 5% more extra healing power, but then, Any Priest can keep the group alive, why will choose a Healer that cant do any dps but not a Priest that can Heal the group and DPS also.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>yes i am proud to say that Templar can still out heal most case, but 99% of time it's not required.. then this is meaningless to have the extra healing power... any thought?</DIV>

Timaarit

11-01-2005, 12:52 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <p>That's not my only defense, and simply putting words in my mouth doesn't make it so. </p> <p>I'm still chosen over other priests in my guild because I still heal better. Sure, in some situations, Furies and their DPS will be more desirable to some groups. In other situations, with other groups, a Templar is a much better fit. It all depends on what you're fighting, where you're fighting, and who you're fighting next to.</p> <p>What HAS changed is the fact that Furies in my Guild are no longer relegated to soloing as the only viable means of experience gain on many nights. Previous to the combat revamp, many groups within my guild would not trust a Fury or even a Mystic as a solo healer for a group. Those Furies would have to wait for groups to find a Templar...AND require additional burst healing in order to be considered as a secondary healer. Now, Furies can actually keep groups alive in many more situations. </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Of course they dont since they haven't adjusted to tha changes and I think you are making a noise of your own too about how 'good' you are. But like noticed, the numbers you use as proof are mostly wrong. Our guild trusts now all healing classes to heal them since they have.</font> </p> <p>Honestly, if I was a monk in a group based around magic DPS and had room for one healer, I'd take a Fury over any other priest as well. Yet, if I was a Guardian or Paladin in a melee heavy group, I'd take a Templar before any other. It's situational now. We're still best overall, but at least now other priests don't sit on the sidelines while groups form up around Guardians and Templars (then fill in the other spots). </p> <p>I know what I bring to a group. I know how much my Glory of Combat brings in; how much my debuffs increase group DPS; and how much more healing I can bring a group within a 10 second burst than other classes. You may dismiss our passive healing options as negligible or not worth it, but I don't. I know why I play a Templar. I know what I get out of the class. I know my role. </p> <p>We're not the gods-among-healers that we once were. However, we're still the best healers in more situations. </p> <font color="#ffff00">I agree, we are mere average mortals now with lowest dps and least useful utility. Only situation I know I am the best healer is when mt gets hit over 5 times in 7 seconds for 300+ damage and this is due to master II lvl 54 single target reactive. Now how often do you think that happens? We are the best healers for <1% of the fights.</font> <div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

Andu

11-01-2005, 04:10 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm still chosen over other priests in my guild because I still heal better. </P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Kendricke, I think you might find you are chosen because you are the guildleader/friend of the people inviting you not because of the class you play. Despite what they might tell you.</P> <P>If you want to get some more objectivity in all the stuff you are spouting I suggest you leave your guild just for a few weeks and "go it alone" like a lot of players. It might be a revelation to you.</P>

Caethre

11-01-2005, 04:47 PM

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR> <DIV>Difference between Now and Pre-vamp is : now u dont have to need Templar's 5% more extra healing power, but then, Any Priest can keep the group alive, why will choose a Healer that cant do any dps but not a Priest that can Heal the group and DPS also.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>yes i am proud to say that Templar can still out heal most case, but 99% of time it's not required.. then this is meaningless to have the extra healing power... any thought?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Absolutely bang on the nail. But it is also very very obvious to those of us who have our eyes OPEN. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My conjuror groupmate of last night summed it up well. He would not ever take a Templar to a group unless they were a personal friend if he had a Fury as an alternative option, it would be weakening the group. I can only agree with him - I would not either. Those with regular groupmates, or those in large raiding guilds, are protected from this. But the rest of the Templars are so out of luck right now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Felishanna [53 Templar]</DIV> <DIV>Annaelisa [27 Fury] - and rising fast.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Caethre on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:02 PM</span>

Kendricke

11-01-2005, 07:31 PM

<DIV>First premise: There are six priests - not just Templars. In an average, run of the mill, everyday situation, any priest SHOULD be able to keep up with general healing demands. Do you disagree?<BR><BR>Second premise: In situations where you'd want more healing, such as challenging groups, attempts on named, many quests, many instances, and raiding, Templars are still able to heal groups more effectively than other priests. Do you disagree?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Caethre

11-01-2005, 08:33 PM

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <DIV>First premise: There are six priests - not just Templars. In an average, run of the mill, everyday situation, any priest SHOULD be able to keep up with general healing demands. Do you disagree?<BR><BR>Second premise: In situations where you'd want more healing, such as challenging groups, attempts on named, many quests, many instances, and raiding, Templars are still able to heal groups more effectively than other priests. Do you disagree?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>If I were designing the game (which I clearly am not), yes would disagree on point 1. The game *at release* had six priest classes, scaled in healing power from strongest (Templar) to weakest (Fury), and in DPS/Utility in the opposite direction. This was a good design (in my opinion), and did not need changing in principle. I am not saying it was perfect, but the 'all priests should have equal healing power' mantra is not a good one, infact, has done immeasurable harm to our class given that healing has been flattened out and DPS has been left with the original curve as at release left in place.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, SoE have decided that all priests should heal equally. Don't start the semantical word games about what precisely they said, this is what they have said, and so be it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I also disagree with point 2 as far as anything I have ever done (with either character). I have never yet been in a circumstance post LU15 where as either character I could not have achieved the same result as far as healing is concerned as a Fury as as a Templar. Whilst I accept that in raid settings (I do not raid, so I have to take raiders word for it) or for FULL groups in super gear taking on stupidly powered mobs eg orange heroics (which I also do not do, it is not efficient XP, I grind on blues and whites), the Templar might (and I mean MIGHT) have a tiny healing advantage that actually may make a difference, this is in no way offsetting the massive extra contribution of other priests in DPS/Utility in every other domain of play., where any small healing advantage is not needed but the huge extra DPS is sought after</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So basically, no, I don't accept even your basic premises.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Give Anna the task of getting 40% xp tonight, and she will get it solo, duo or trio, at more than twice the rate of any templar you care to name at the same level (even one with far better gear than the grey con rubbish she is still wearing), and probably more than three times the rate if we are talking solo or duo with a class of my choice.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When I said night and day, I really meant it. There is no comparsion. Each day I play, makes it more and more clear.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Felishanna / Annaelisa</DIV>

bigmak20

11-01-2005, 08:38 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div>First premise: There are six priests - not just Templars. In an average, run of the mill, everyday situation, any priest SHOULD be able to keep up with general healing demands. Do you disagree?Second premise: In situations where you'd want more healing, such as challenging groups, attempts on named, many quests, many instances, and raiding, Templars are still able to heal groups more effectively than other priests. Do you disagree?</div> <div> </div> <div> </div><hr></blockquote>Premise 1 is an statement of obvious truth.. what was the point in it? And Premise 2 is wrong. Any priest can do equally well in that situation -- the Templar will have a few percent more raw healing power from 'utility' heals and any other priest will have any of a variety of tools available to help kill the mob faster or buff/debuff dmg to bring the group success. Last night taking on nameds I would have given my left nut to kill the mob faster while I was sitting there with my thumb up my butt watching the MT die because all my heals were spent. If I had a few nukes to drop that made significant dmg we would have won .. period .. no question. Instead we wiped three times trying. A DPS'ing priest with near equal healing is winner in almost all situations. </span><div></div>

Kendricke

11-01-2005, 09:18 PM

<P>Which named? What class tanked? Maybe I'll round up some guildmates and give the same situation a go. </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

lmhotep

11-01-2005, 09:39 PM

<P>**REMOVED FLAME BAIT**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinnstein's Monster on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:26 AM</span>

bigmak20

11-01-2005, 09:58 PM

Iktha'thul (sp?) big snake (white con to me) on ramps to 2nd level in Roost. Solo healed two of the nameds in there (and all the non nameds) with this setup. 55 Pally 55 Monk 54 Ranger 53 Temp (me) 51 Conjurer Pushing the envelope I know I know... shouldn't be taking on mobs that high etc etc. Fact remains would have been do-able with a little more DPS. Now.. get this.. after 3 wipes decided to make the Monk the MT and did it successfully. That goes into the whole Mit vs Avoid fiasco and didn't want to go there... lol The second snake (yellow con to me) we had the Monk tank right off and killed in one try. Avoidance tanks need less healing (basing that on a lot more then this encounter -- I run into similar situations with the guardians). The Fury in our guild solo heals through there regularly -- I was getting litterally screamed at (CAPS) to heal more and I was screaming back ALL MY TIMERS ARE UP. If I could have dropped dmg producing nukes between heal timers the first 2 or 3 cycles the MoB would be dead before everyone went critical. Want to balance Furies for groups? Disable their DPS in groups. lol. Or lower them to Templar level. Note this is one big uber mob scenario (frequently happens with nameds and raids where Templar is supposedly 'best'... LOL) where Fate line does us no good and Inv Curate is too small of a heal to matter one bit. Pally and Monk had GoC of course; ranger was working from range so he did not. Hell.. a faster cast large heal I think I could have kept this group up with the Pally tanking. If I had the heals on seperate timers like Pre13 I could have kept this group up... /sigh Note that none of us are "uber". I've replaced my fableds with cobalt for mit and same for most of us going from T5 fabled to T6 crafted atm. I think with a few more fableds and adpt 3s or masters this is doable. It was very close... and doable the the Monk tanking. In fact -- one more level and I choose Master 2 group heal I think I could keep this group up with the Pally tanking. Obviously... levels mean a lot now. One more level on this group and we clear all of the nameds. I think I could build a group to do this at this level -- replace the conjurer with a Wizard for more immediate DPS killing power we probably succeed. etc.... fact still remains this can be done with a Fury more easily and that's true for any MoB you need to kill.... DPS between heals = better then heal and wait.

bigmak20

11-01-2005, 09:59 PM

<SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <DIV>First premise: There are six priests - not just Templars. In an average, run of the mill, everyday situation, any priest SHOULD be able to keep up with general healing demands. Do you disagree?<BR><BR>Second premise: In situations where you'd want more healing, such as challenging groups, attempts on named, many quests, many instances, and raiding, Templars are still able to heal groups more effectively than other priests. Do you disagree?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Premise 1 is an statement of obvious truth.. what was the point in it? And Premise 2 is wrong. Any priest can do equally well in that situation -- the Templar will have a few percent more raw healing power from 'utility' heals and any other priest will have any of a variety of tools available to help kill the mob faster or buff/debuff dmg to bring the group success.<BR><BR>Last night taking on nameds I would have given my left nut to kill the mob faster while I was sitting there with my thumb up my butt watching the MT die because all my heals were spent. If I had a few nukes to drop that made significant dmg we would have won .. period .. no question. Instead we wiped three times trying. A DPS'ing priest with near equal healing is winner in almost all situations.<BR><BR>-------------------------<BR><BR>this post has since re-appeared.<BR><BR>I don't want to be deleted so draw your own conclusions. lol<BR></SPAN><BR> <P>Message Edited by bigmak2010 on <SPAN class=date_text>11-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:20 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinnstein's Monster on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:33 AM</span>

Timaarit

11-02-2005, 02:13 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <>First premise: There are six priests - not just Templars. In an average, run of the mill, everyday situation, any priest SHOULD be able to keep up with general healing demands. Do you disagree? Second premise: In situations where you'd want more healing, such as challenging groups, attempts on named, many quests, many instances, and raiding, Templars are still able to heal groups more effectively than other priests. Do you disagree? <> <hr></blockquote>Yes. The only way to measure effectiveness is to see how many times the group is wiped. I'd say that templar groups get wiped just as much. And why? Because of our reactives and long cast times. I have lost mt several times because tank was (or rather would have been) healed after he got hit. The problem was that he was dead before reactive healed. With HoT's and wards, there is no such problem. True that the HoT healing might occur late, but that is just bad timing and is not because of the nature of the heal itself. I noticed this particularly well today with my monk. A group of berserker as mt and fury as healer, I stunned the opponent when mt got low on health and HoT healed him. With reactives this would have been a really bad strategy. But the only one any groups have -> stun opponent so that mt can be healed. And this is where clerics suck at.</span><div></div>

Kendricke

11-02-2005, 04:01 AM

<P>Cast pre-pull reactives. Place Sacred Redoubt and Glory of Combat on primary tank. Cast Glory of Combat on second highest autoattack melee. If it's a multiple opponent encounter, cast atoning fate right off and use minor heals as necessary. If it's not, and you're facing a single target, use reproach or mark of kings as needed, depending on your own group composition and how hard the target is.</P> <P>If, at any point, the target starts slamming your group hard and you have absolutely no heals available , use Shielding Faith (if facing spell casters) or Prostrate and try to regain control of the situation. There are very, very few situations where I feel I can't control the healing in a group, and even then, I would have to wonder exactly how any other healer would do better. </P> <P>If you feel other healers are better than Templars, then perhaps you're playing the wrong class. It may not be very diplomatic of me to say this, but it's a realistic truth, isn't it? If you're not happy where you are, then why are you there? I have to wonder at the logic behind this. </P> <P>For months, Templars were THE healer. We were so far above the abilities of other healers that we were seen as the ONLY healer to have. Now, other priests are able to at least handle situations in groups that they previously could not. They spent months asking to be able to heal their groups, and now they can. NO, they cannot heal as well as Templars in most situations, but they at least have a more solidified place in groups now as a primary or even only healer. </P> <P>So, it stands to reason then that many of those who chose to play as Templars did so because they wanted to be THE healers. They overlooked our deficiencies in other areas because we were so unquestionably considered the only real healer that could realistically keep any group alive. Therefore, it's my belief that many who originally chose to play as Templars chose the wrong class, or at least chose for the wrong reasons. </P> <P>We're still the best healers. Yes, it's my opinion, but it's an opinion which I believe I've tried to back with at least attempts at facts. These facts aren't always seen as such, and I've come to the conclusion there's simply no way to convince everyone of what I see. Therefore, I don't try for everyone. I post what I see, as I see it, and hope that I'm able to make a difference, however small, to those who have the authority to make decisions regarding what it is I'm seeing. </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

Timaarit

11-02-2005, 11:31 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Cast pre-pull reactives. Place Sacred Redoubt and Glory of Combat on primary tank. Cast Glory of Combat on second highest autoattack melee. If it's a multiple opponent encounter, cast atoning fate right off and use minor heals as necessary. If it's not, and you're facing a single target, use reproach or mark of kings as needed, depending on your own group composition and how hard the target is.</p> <p>If, at any point, the target starts slamming your group hard and you have absolutely no heals available , use Shielding Faith (if facing spell casters) or Prostrate and try to regain control of the situation. There are very, very few situations where I feel I can't control the healing in a group, and even then, I would have to wonder exactly how any other healer would do better. </p> <p>If you feel other healers are better than Templars, then perhaps you're playing the wrong class. It may not be very diplomatic of me to say this, but it's a realistic truth, isn't it? If you're not happy where you are, then why are you there? I have to wonder at the logic behind this. </p> <p>For months, Templars were THE healer. We were so far above the abilities of other healers that we were seen as the ONLY healer to have. Now, other priests are able to at least handle situations in groups that they previously could not. They spent months asking to be able to heal their groups, and now they can. NO, they cannot heal as well as Templars in most situations, but they at least have a more solidified place in groups now as a primary or even only healer. </p> <p>So, it stands to reason then that many of those who chose to play as Templars did so because they wanted to be THE healers. They overlooked our deficiencies in other areas because we were so unquestionably considered the only real healer that could realistically keep any group alive. Therefore, it's my belief that many who originally chose to play as Templars chose the wrong class, or at least chose for the wrong reasons. </p> <p>We're still the best healers. Yes, it's my opinion, but it's an opinion which I believe I've tried to back with at least attempts at facts. These facts aren't always seen as such, and I've come to the conclusion there's simply no way to convince everyone of what I see. Therefore, I don't try for everyone. I post what I see, as I see it, and hope that I'm able to make a difference, however small, to those who have the authority to make decisions regarding what it is I'm seeing. </p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Like I said, I am. But since I have placed a lot of playtime to my character, I will not make yet another alt just because my templar is gimped. I will demand balance. And as for your opinion, it is not backed up by facts. You have never shown any facts, just Moorgards posts and situations that are <1% of the gameplay. And I am playing in a nin raiding guild that has people with full legendary gear and we are killing orange cons on regular basis. With templar or fury as single healer or with two healers. Since the update, the fury hasn't experienced a wipe, I have. And I have a3 spells while the fury has some a3's but mainly a1's (like said, I am the guilds sage). So now I don't have The Heals. All I have is equal healing and less than equal other stuff.</span><div></div>

Kendricke

11-02-2005, 08:29 PM

<DIV>First Question: <BR>If your perception of the situation differs from the perception of other players, doesn't it stand to reason that there's a significant chance your perception differs from the developers?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Second Question:<BR>If so, how do you propose to convince the developers that your perception is more apt than their perception?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tertiary Questions:</DIV> <DIV>How do you feel you're more likely to convince the developers that your "demands" for "balance" are the correct views if you can't convince other players of the same? Or do you feel you are convincing other players that your arguments are the correct arguments?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Timaarit

11-03-2005, 12:46 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div> <div>First Question: If your perception of the situation differs from the perception of other players, doesn't it stand to reason that there's a significant chance your perception differs from the developers?</div> <div> </div> <div>Second Question:If so, how do you propose to convince the developers that your perception is more apt than their perception?</div> <div> </div> <div>Tertiary Questions:</div> <div>How do you feel you're more likely to convince the developers that your "demands" for "balance" are the correct views if you can't convince other players of the same? Or do you feel you are convincing other players that your arguments are the correct arguments?</div> <hr></blockquote>1. Does this apply to your perception too? You are a minority with you perception about templars after all. 2. Why dont you tell me 3. Other players are convinced about templars being worse than other healers (exept you of course).</span><div></div>

Gcha

11-03-2005, 12:52 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <DIV>First Question: <BR>If your perception of the situation differs from the perception of other players, doesn't it stand to reason that there's a significant chance your perception differs from the developers?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Second Question:<BR>If so, how do you propose to convince the developers that your perception is more apt than their perception?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tertiary Questions:</DIV> <DIV>How do you feel you're more likely to convince the developers that your "demands" for "balance" are the correct views if you can't convince other players of the same? Or do you feel you are convincing other players that your arguments are the correct arguments?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>If there’s one thing that’s pretty obvious by now it’s that there’s no "correct" or "more apt" perception here. For a starter, it’s obvious that there are several schools of thought as to what people want their templar to be (heh reminds me of the old days with all the arguments between the "battle clerics" and the pure healers). Clearly people differ on (1) what constitutes sufficient soloing ability, (2) what constitutes sufficient "utility", (3) what utility spells are appropriate for the class, and last but certainly not least, (4) what constitutes *sufficient* healing and (5) whether it is important how the healing is done. <P>All we can all do it state our thoughts. The devs will have to make the decision. Based on everything I’ve seen in the development of this game, I would assume the decision will be based on which approach they believe will keep the most people playing. Thus, levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction are important. I would hope they have some way of gauging that, but I don't really believe they do, and they don't seem to seek the information out. These forums are a tiny indicator but certainly not a representative sample nor statistically significant. If they felt the forums meant much of anything, they would allow polls, which would at least generate a larger sample since many people who won’t post will vote in polls. I think they make "seat of the pants" decisions based, at best, on non-representative views obtained from a few people.</P> <P>I’ll just continue to state my views and hope for the best. I am not going to worry about what the developers’ current perception of templars is. It seems their perception of locked encounters and various other things changed, so I would assume other perceptions can change too.</P> <P>As far as convincing other players, I don’t see that as important at all. People generally come here because they have have a question or they have an opinion which they wish to be seen by the developers, and, of course, many enjoy the debate =) I don’t think I’ve seen one player convince another player of anything yet on this forum, lol, unless it was some minor thing pertaining to use of a spell or such. If somebody believes their templar is deficient, telling them 100 times it’s fine isn’t going to accomplish anything ... and vice versa. When the day comes that somebody around here admits their position was wrong, well, somebody page me, will ya =) </P><BR>

Kendricke

11-03-2005, 12:58 AM

<P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <DIV>First Question: <BR>If your perception of the situation differs from the perception of other players, doesn't it stand to reason that there's a significant chance your perception differs from the developers?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Second Question:<BR>If so, how do you propose to convince the developers that your perception is more apt than their perception?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tertiary Questions:</DIV> <DIV>How do you feel you're more likely to convince the developers that your "demands" for "balance" are the correct views if you can't convince other players of the same? Or do you feel you are convincing other players that your arguments are the correct arguments?</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>1. Does this apply to your perception too? You are a minority with you perception about templars after all.<BR><BR>2. Why dont you tell me<BR><BR>3. Other players are convinced about templars being worse than other healers (exept you of course).<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm not merely attempting to use only my perceptions...I'm parsing logs and I've seen that my perceptions are based on what I'm seeing, not merely what I think I'm feeling to be truth. So often, our feelings of what may be accurate and what actually is accurate are completely contradictory. Our senses may very well lie to us. </P> <P>This has been my point all along. Many choose to scoff at my continual challenges to assumptions based on purely anecdotal observation, but since observations are subjective, I find that the only way we're going to convince the developers of any "truth" to the constant claims being raised here is to stick to true facts that aren't subjective, but rather found through means that are there to see. </P> <P>Obviously you're free to disagree with that point of view. You're free to tell me that facts won't matter because you know the truth of the matter based on your own experiences. You'd be right, too...just as right as six men of Indostan once were. Each of them was just as "right" as the others in their opinions regarding an elephant:</P> <P> </P> <P align=center><IMG src="http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/elephant/elephant.JPG"></P> <DIV> </DIV> <P align=center><FONT size=2>John Godfrey Saxe's ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend,</FONT></P> <P align=center><STRONG><FONT size=6>The Blind Men and the Elephant</FONT></STRONG></P> <P align=center><BR>It was six men of Indostan<BR>To learning much inclined,<BR>Who went to see the Elephant<BR>(Though all of them were blind),<BR>That each by observation<BR>Might satisfy his mind.<BR><BR>The First approached the Elephant,<BR>And happening to fall<BR>Against his broad and sturdy side,<BR>At once began to bawl:<BR>"God bless me! but the Elephant<BR>Is very like a wall!"<BR><BR>The Second, feeling of the tusk<BR>Cried, "Ho! what have we here,<BR>So very round and smooth and sharp?<BR>To me `tis mighty clear<BR>This wonder of an Elephant<BR>Is very like a spear!"<BR><BR>The Third approached the animal,<BR>And happening to take<BR>The squirming trunk within his hands,<BR>Thus boldly up he spake:<BR>"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant<BR>Is very like a snake!"<BR><BR>The Fourth reached out an eager hand,<BR>And felt about the knee:<BR>"What most this wondrous beast is like<BR>Is mighty plain," quoth he;<BR>"'Tis clear enough the Elephant<BR>Is very like a tree!"<BR><BR>The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,<BR>Said: "E'en the blindest man<BR>Can tell what this resembles most;<BR>Deny the fact who can,<BR>This marvel of an Elephant<BR>Is very like a fan!"<BR><BR>The Sixth no sooner had begun<BR>About the beast to grope,<BR>Than, seizing on the swinging tail<BR>That fell within his scope.<BR>"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant<BR>Is very like a rope!"<BR><BR>And so these men of Indostan<BR>Disputed loud and long,<BR>Each in his own opinion<BR>Exceeding stiff and strong,<BR>Though each was partly in the right,<BR>And all were in the wrong!<BR><BR>Moral:</P> <P align=center>So oft in theologic wars,<BR>The disputants, I ween,<BR>Rail on in utter ignorance<BR>Of what each other mean,<BR>And prate about an Elephant<BR>Not one of them has seen!</P> <P align=center><BR></P>

Kendricke

11-03-2005, 01:00 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR><BR>If there’s one thing that’s pretty obvious by now it’s that there’s no "correct" or "more apt" perception here. For a starter, it’s obvious that there are several schools of thought as to what people want their templar to be (heh reminds me of the old days with all the arguments between the "battle clerics" and the pure healers). Clearly people differ on (1) what constitutes sufficient soloing ability, (2) what constitutes sufficient "utility", (3) what utility spells are appropriate for the class, and last but certainly not least, (4) what constitutes *sufficient* healing and (5) whether it is important how the healing is done. <P>All we can all do it state our thoughts. The devs will have to make the decision. Based on everything I’ve seen in the development of this game, I would assume the decision will be based on which approach they believe will keep the most people playing. Thus, levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction are important. I would hope they have some way of gauging that, but I don't really believe they do, and they don't seem to seek the information out. These forums are a tiny indicator but certainly not a representative sample nor statistically significant. If they felt the forums meant much of anything, they would allow polls, which would at least generate a larger sample since many people who won’t post will vote in polls. I think they make "seat of the pants" decisions based, at best, on non-representative views obtained from a few people.</P> <P>I’ll just continue to state my views and hope for the best. I am not going to worry about what the developers’ current perception of templars is. It seems their perception of locked encounters and various other things changed, so I would assume other perceptions can change too.</P> <P>As far as convincing other players, I don’t see that as important at all. People generally come here because they have have a question or they have an opinion which they wish to be seen by the developers, and, of course, many enjoy the debate =) I don’t think I’ve seen one player convince another player of anything yet on this forum, lol, unless it was some minor thing pertaining to use of a spell or such. If somebody believes their templar is deficient, telling them 100 times it’s fine isn’t going to accomplish anything ... and vice versa. When the day comes that somebody around here admits their position was wrong, well, somebody page me, will ya =) </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Excellent post. I've give you five stars if I could.<BR>

Timaarit

11-03-2005, 01:19 AM

Well this leave us to a position where you are in a minority with your perception. I have no doubts that we have the most healing power of all healers when it comes to healing mt. But the margin is about 5 to 10%. When we need to heal the group, we are one of the worst. Also in over 99% of the fights, that extra 5 to 10% is not needed. We are not even the best with spike damage, healers with wards are. I have told it before, but the only situation where we are by far the best healers is multiple add attacking mt with relatively low damage. If the damage per second is too high, we are just as bad as any other class. <div></div>

Kendricke

11-03-2005, 01:40 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR>Well this leave us to a position where you are in a minority with your perception. I have no doubts that we have the most healing power of all healers when it comes to healing mt. But the margin is about 5 to 10%. When we need to heal the group, we are one of the worst. Also in over 99% of the fights, that extra 5 to 10% is not needed. We are not even the best with spike damage, healers with wards are.<BR><BR>I have told it before, but the only situation where we are by far the best healers is multiple add attacking mt with relatively low damage. If the damage per second is too high, we are just as bad as any other class.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>First off, I wasn't aware this was a popularity contest. </P> <P>Secondly, I've made multiple posts already which stated that I felt far too many Templar players originally chose the class for the wrong reasons based on a bit of "flavor of the month" perceptions. Now that the flavor has shifted slightly, many of those Templars who chose the class for reasons I did not are suddenly, and understandably, upset. The grossly overpowered healing abilities of the Templar are no longer so grossly overpowered, just as the vastly underpowered healing abilities of other priests are no longer quite so vastly underpowered. This leads to a situation where suddenly, many "Templars" are looking for greener pastures. </P> <P>An old friend once told me that "People are like electricity. They tend to follow the path of least resistance." If someone chose to play a Templar because it was perceived as the "easiest" class (easy to get groups, easy to play, easy to perform, easy to level, etc), then of course it was going to be attractive. Now that it's no longer perceived by so many as the "easiest" priest class, choices are being made by those same players. The new "easiest" class now appears to many to be the Fury class, and so the pendulum swings once more. In another few months, it will be Defilers or Mystics and again we'll hear the outcry from Furies who suddenly compare statistic X to ability Y, and the new exodus to the new "flavor of the month" will begin anew.</P> <P>Are Templars somehow incapable of performing well? Of course not. Are we a great soloing class? Of course not. We never have been. This was never a strength of the Templar class when compared even against other priests. Yet, suddenly it's an issue? Because we're no longer the "easy" first choice? </P> <P>Now, skill matters more than class. Reputation matters once more. Relationships and networking skills are more important. Those Templars with neither skills, reputation, or significant in-game relationships are suddenly finding it harder to get to groups? Is this a bad thing?</P> <P> </P>

Timaarit

11-03-2005, 01:53 AM

<P>**REMOVED PERSONAL ATTACK**</P> <P>Fact is that majority of the templars who write to these boards are very unhappy and upset about the change that was made to templars. Why they chose templar to begin with has nothing to do with the issue if they liked the templar up to lu13. If they didn't, then you could say that they picked the wrong class. But since almost everyone did like templars up to lu13, your observation about the reasons is incorrect.<BR><BR>I picked templar because of the name templar. I was to be a healer who could go in the middle of a fight, face the opponent and heal still. As it is, I can't do that, I need to sneak to behind and attack from there and frankly, with my dps, it is not worth the effort.<BR><BR>Also when I picked my templar, I was in the impression that the game would be group oriented. And it was. Up to lu13 and DoF where that changed too. I was never told that my templar would be obsolete for 50% of the content untill you and another templar showed up on the boards and claimed that I should be since I am a templar.<BR><BR><BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:51 AM</span>

Bad_Mojo

11-03-2005, 11:14 AM

<P>Kelahrim, <STRONG>35th</STRONG> level Fury.</P> <P>No wonder he heals with the greatest of ease and feels so uber.</P> <P>'nuf said.</P>

rollando

11-03-2005, 03:08 PM

Kendricke, <DIV><BR>I am not sure you understand the issues many of us are complaining about.<BR><BR>Nobody says that he can't heal anymore. Nobody says the GROUP game has become awful. We still do very well in groups. I have not lost the trust of the ones I used to play with.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What some people say is that they feel kept out from half the content of the game. DOF was designed with many long and interesting SOLO quest paths. These quest paths are simply so tedious to complete as a templar ( 70 seconds to kill a blue arrow down mob at level 52 is the norm - a blue SOLO group forces to run in many cases due to the constant interrupts, etc ... ) that some templars ( I use some instead of many on purpose ) don't dothem anymore.</DIV> <DIV><BR>So, what does a 12.47 % advantage when healing in a group mean when we suffer a 50% disadvantage in doable content ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I for sure would gladly drop mark of kings, involontary curate and a few more spells for a decent soloability. Iknow iam not the only one ...</DIV>

Caethre

11-03-2005, 04:02 PM

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Bad_Mojo wrote:<BR> <P>Kelahrim, <STRONG>35th</STRONG> level Fury.</P> <P>No wonder he heals with the greatest of ease and feels so uber.</P> <P>'nuf said.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>So somehow being level 35 means he is not capable of posting on balance between healers in the wider game? Whereas you are?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Bad_Mojo

11-03-2005, 04:34 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR>OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>So somehow being level 35 means he is not capable of posting on balance between healers in the wider game? Whereas you are?</BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I said at level 35 he wasn't having any problems keeping his group alive, something Furies could do (albeit roughly at times) even before the big update. I didn't mention his views on priest balance - Just that "keeping your group alive" gets a lot harder the higher you go, so making a blanket statement that pushes a belief that that's the way it will always be is false. His views on balance actually mimic my own, I'd like to see Templars get a little more soloability myself. His views on his own healing will likely change by the time he hits 50-60.</P> <P>Next time try not to read so much into what I am saying, I'm pretty straight foreword... If I don't type it, I'm not talking about it. :smileywink:</P><p>Message Edited by Bad_Mojo on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:05 AM</span>

quetzaqotl

11-03-2005, 05:14 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Bad_Mojo wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR>OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>So somehow being level 35 means he is not capable of posting on balance between healers in the wider game? Whereas you are?</BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I said at level 35 he wasn't having any problems keeping his group alive, something Furies could do (albeit roughly at times) even before the big update. I didn't mention his views on priest balance - Just that "keeping your group alive" gets a lot harder the higher you go, so making a blanket statement that pushes a belief that that's the way it will always be is false. His views on balance actually mimic my own, I'd like to see Templars get a little more soloability myself. His views on his own healing will likely change by the time he hits 50-60.</P> <P>Next time try not to read so much into what I am saying, I'm pretty straight foreword... If I don't type it, I'm not talking about it. :smileywink:</P> <P>Message Edited by Bad_Mojo on <SPAN class=date_text>11-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>07:05 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes I agree 100% badmojo

Bad_Mojo

11-03-2005, 05:22 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote:<BR><BR><BR>Yes I agree 100% badmojo <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Heya Quetz! Good to see some of the old crew are still around after my few months of absence <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You know where I'm coming from, I can name a few folks back in the day that *swore* Furies weren't broken because they were doing just fine... at level 22. Levels are tiered just like anything else in the game (though a little more transparently with the 14 level range of spell upgrades and the levels at which they are gained), what holds true at 20-30 may not at 30-40, etc. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm sure Caethre would be just as quick to jump on a low level Templar claiming their soloability is just fine because they are getting exp in Blackburrow with no issues. :smileyhappy: </DIV>

quetzaqotl

11-03-2005, 05:26 PM

<P>Yup we are the ol graybeards of our class hehe :smileywink:</P> <P>And yeah there are the golden lvls when things are like roses thats why it so wrong to compare classes at different lvls if someone wouldve come to our boards and said im healing fine at lvl 30 while we were documenting our things to get fixed we wouldve told em politely to go lvl some more and then make your opinion.</P> <P>Have been saying this recently again, to a low lvl fury.</P> <p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:28 AM</span>

Bad_Mojo

11-03-2005, 05:37 PM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote:<BR> <P>Yup we are the ol graybeards of our class hehe :smileywink:</P> <P>And yeah there are the golden lvls when things are like roses thats why it so wrong to compare classes at different lvls if someone wouldve come to our boards and said im healing fine at lvl 30 while we are documenting our things to get fixed we wouldve told em politely to go lvl some more and then make your opinion.</P> <P>Have been saying this too again to a low lvl fury.</P> <P>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <SPAN class=date_text>11-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>04:27 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'll admit, seeing the original poster's thread title probably made me speak a little harsher than I would have normally... It's almost as if he's saying "Even though it took 9 months to get us fixed, I now wish we weren't so you Templar's wouldn't feel so bad."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Honestly, I'm a proponent of balancing up. Getting where we are today was a long fight, his post was kind of a slap in the face and I may have taken it a bit personal. If there is an imbalance (and honestly, I believe there may be) then it should be fixed - But SOE has ALL the data and they aren't sharing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That means we (all priests) need to supply data if we want any info. Parses, spell stats, etc. I'm not going to say there is a HUGE imbalance until we can compare spell stats. Sure Furies hit hard, but with long cast/recast timers as well. That can be balanced by less damage on quicker spells (look at Furies/Wardens, very good example). Now I know Templars are lower, but by how much? And honestly, parses don't do much without knowing the situations. Templars are often primary healers, so while that other priest subclass is going full burn (plus DPS), the Templars are keeping people alive (minus DPS). I think spell stats are the more important comparison to be made, to include any debuffs to elements/magic/divine as well as stat buffs (Furies get a nice INT buff, it's only fair to include it).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What we need is a Lucy for EQII - Best info website out there, just not giving data for EQII :smileysad:</DIV>

Bad_Mojo

11-03-2005, 05:38 PM

<DIV>double post.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Bad_Mojo on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:39 AM</span>

quetzaqotl

11-03-2005, 05:46 PM

<P>Yes was grinding my teeth over the op and thread title, but him being low lvl he prolly didnt have to wait 9 months like some of us did that doesnt mean templars cant talk about the things they think is broken/unbalanced etc.</P> <P>But If youre comparing like so many people do on here, post your spells and do a valid comparison.</P> <P>I know some people like kendricke are at least trying to and he gets called fanboi cause he stays optimistic(or at least hes trying to), you might not agree with him but then post your own proven facts, only saying "I have the feeling that Im not as good as a fury doesnt suffice."</P> <P>(tho to some it will be enough to start a "war" against other classes) </P> <p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:50 AM</span>

Timaarit

11-03-2005, 06:13 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>quetzaqotl wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <p>Yes was grinding my teeth over the op and thread title, but him being low lvl he prolly didnt have to wait 9 months like some of us did that doesnt mean templars cant talk about the things they think is broken/unbalanced etc.</p> <p>But If youre comparing like so many people do on here, post your spells and do a valid comparison.</p> <p>I know some people like kendricke are at least trying to and he gets called fanboi cause he stays optimistic(or at least hes trying to), you might not agree with him but then post your own proven facts, only saying "I have the feeling that Im not as good as a fury doesnt suffice."</p> <p>(tho to some it will be enough to start a "war" against other classes) </p> <div></div><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class="date_text">11-03-2005</span> <span class="time_text">04:50 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Yes yes, I am sure you agreed and thanked every fury that claimed there is nothing wrong with furies during the 9 months it took you to get fixed... Then why on earth you think it is good that you got fixed if there was nothing wrong with your class? Oh there was, says who? Then why do you think our opinions about our class is wrong? Because Kend says so? Lol, K is one 1/50 minority in that. You got fixed because you complained. Sideproduct was that templars got nerfed massively in the process. Now we are complaining and demanding a fix and you, who dont even play a templar, say that we should shut up and suffer because you did. Get lost and go troll somewhere else.</span><div></div>

quetzaqotl

11-03-2005, 06:29 PM

<P>Talking to you is like talking to a wall tim I explained it so many times and even in the thread you quoted so read before you post youre being ignorant again.</P> <P>And furies collected data and posted that in multiple threads giving concrete feedback without all the nerf calling and whining that has been done by people like you, bigmak, azrael,cow and tuved you guys are the trollsquad so please shut it.</P> <DIV>(I even know some on that list from comming on the fury boards and telling us how unbalanced it was for us to have more hp and supposedly more power and that was while we were broken as it was so pls dont expect me to see their posts as absolute truth)</DIV> <DIV>try to post some constructive things instead of repeating what others in their opinion said without doing a proper comparison.</DIV><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:41 AM</span>

Timaarit

11-03-2005, 06:41 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>quetzaqotl wrote:<p>Talking to you is like talking to a wall tim I explained it so many times and even in the thread you quoted so read before you post youre being ignorant again.</p> <p>And furies collected data and posted that in multiple threads giving concrete feedback without all the nerf calling and whining that has been done by people like you, bigmak, azrael,cow and tuved you guys are the trollsquad so please shut it.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>So you think that now is too early to complain? That we should start it after 9 months? <span>:smileysurprised:</span> And what you fail to realize is that we are not calling a nerf. We are calling an upgrade to templars. If you feel that that nerfs you, then think again since if that is the case, we got nerfed badly when you were upgraded. But I dont think we were, I think we need an upgrade too. There has been collected data on this board about how much templars suck at dps. That is concrete data and in multiple threads. All I see you do is to whine and build strawmen to justify you whine. </span><div></div>

quetzaqotl

11-03-2005, 06:44 PM

...comparing dps only again, sheez come on man try harder. <DIV>and again maybe you can try to read for a change.</DIV>

Timaarit

11-03-2005, 06:49 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>quetzaqotl wrote:...comparing dps only again, sheez come on man try harder. <div>and again maybe you can try to read for a change.</div><hr></blockquote>Then what to compare? Healing is now equal, furies are better in some situations and templars better in some. Utility divides opinions as both sides think their is crap. But the thing we all agree is that templars suck at dps and furies dont. Or do you disagree by chance? If you disagree on heals, just let us know why. On utility? Again, tell us why. As it is, there is nothing left to balance but DPS.</span><div></div>

quetzaqotl

11-03-2005, 06:52 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote:<BR>...comparing dps only again, sheez come on man try harder. <DIV>and again maybe you can try to read for a change.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Then what to compare? Healing is now equal, furies are better in some situations and templars better in some. Utility divides opinions as both sides think their is crap. But the thing we all agree is that templars suck at dps and furies dont. Or do you disagree by chance?<BR><BR>If you disagree on heals, just let us know why. On utility? Again, tell us why.<BR><BR><STRONG>As it is, there is nothing left to balance but DPS.</STRONG><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>says who and show me the prove you say thats the truth then why dont YOU show me numbers.</P> <P>I dont have to defend myself here and pull out the numbers you are the one here claiming all is balanced except for dps, then enlighten me.<BR></P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>problem is it isnt that easy how do you compare for instance a spell that procs x heals with a spell that does x damage? maybe the heal is better maybe the dmg and we can argue till we drop dead about that, but again if you know for a fact all is balanced cept for dps show me.</DIV><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:54 AM</span>

Timaarit

11-03-2005, 07:05 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>quetzaqotl wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> quetzaqotl wrote:...comparing dps only again, sheez come on man try harder. <div>and again maybe you can try to read for a change.</div> <hr> </blockquote>Then what to compare? Healing is now equal, furies are better in some situations and templars better in some. Utility divides opinions as both sides think their is crap. But the thing we all agree is that templars suck at dps and furies dont. Or do you disagree by chance?<b><font color="#ffff00">If you disagree on heals, just let us know why. On utility? Again, tell us why</font>.</b><strong>As it is, there is nothing left to balance but DPS.</strong></span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>says who and show me the prove you say thats the truth then why dont YOU show me numbers.</p> <p>I dont have to defend myself here and pull out the numbers you are the one here claiming all is balanced except for dps, then enlighten me.</p> <div> </div> <div>problem is it isnt that easy how do you compare for instance a spell that procs x heals with a spell that does x damage? maybe the heal is better maybe the dmg and we can argue till we drop dead about that, but again if you know for a fact all is balanced cept for dps show me.</div><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class="date_text">11-03-2005</span> <span class="time_text">05:54 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Ahh, I understand, you are just arguing for arguments sake. Read the yellow part and tell me why you didn't answer it. Of course you wont because you are just trolling. BTW, the heals have been thorougly gone through in skills section. As it is, the postings there changed my opinion about the update for furies. At first I considered the change to be the death to all templars. After reading those, I noticed that there is still use for templars in some situations even though furies now rule some others. For example the fact that our group reactive procs 9 times on any group member while your group HoT ticks 5 times on any member. This means you can heal mt 5 times with that while we heal 9 times. Then again with AE's, we lose up to 6 procs from our reactive and it is down to 3 while your HoT heals everyone 4 more times. Second example is the single target reactive. Ours proc 5 times, 2s cast time (could be 3) and 6 second recast. Means we can in optimal conditions get it proc 5 times in 8 seconds while you HoT will tick every 2 seconds. Reactive is slightly better when mt is hit often. But again, if mt is hit rarely but for a lot of damage, our reactive does not heal the extra damage while your HoT keeps healing. So each one has its good sides and down sides. As for the single heals. Ours heal for bigger amount yes. Yours have faster recasts which means you can heal about the same amount per second than we can. Again there is a complete statistics done about this in another forum. Find them or stop claiming that there are no numbers.</span><div></div>

quetzaqotl

11-03-2005, 07:13 PM

<DIV>I know those numbers tim and still think a group reactive is more useful in most situation than a group hot (the reactive going off on the mt I mean instead all over the group its more common that the only one getting hit is the mt) but that aside the main bottleneck of the comparison it balancing of our utility not talking about sow and invis here as you get other goodies that balance those out (and really those arent that exciting) how do you balance you giving the mt more hp proc heals having stuns whatever with giving damage to a group or maybe even doing damage yourself?</DIV> <DIV>Thats one tough job I agree heals are semi balanced still think reactives in a lot of circumstances are better but in some others yes hots might be better that I can agree on, but try and balance our sec abilties are they balanced? is more dps preferred over more hp/wis/ac/mitig/slows/stuns whatever is it more useful to do damage or slow it or prevend it?(talking about ALL healers here)</DIV> <DIV>Id wish a dev would come and explain how priests are balanced in their opinion, as they at least feel all priests are balanced Id think.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:15 AM</span>

Caethre

11-03-2005, 07:18 PM

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote:<BR> <DIV>Id wish a dev would come and explain how priests are balanced in their opinion, as they at least feel all priests are balanced Id think.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Im sure the Devs felt that it was balanced at release as well. Eventually they accepted that they has made a mistake.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This can happen here as well, even though one Fury (that's you) is SPAMMING every thread on the TEMPLAR board with tens of posts telling us all to shut up on our own board, despite you not even playing a Templar. It is like you are trying to start a flamewar on every thread.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You do know the definition of a 'board troll' .. dont you? I'm amazed the moderator has not spoken with you yet about it, but keep going, I am sure he will.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

quetzaqotl

11-03-2005, 07:37 PM

<P>I have NEVER said you guys should shut up NEVER and for you insisting Im a troll, Im not, should I just take posts like yours saying Im a troll and not react on that?</P> <P>If you feel im spamming so much maybe thats because people keep targetting things at me, if youre not open to argue then ignore.(and I think I only reacted on posts that were about furies btw)</P> <P>K ill keep quiet and not post on things targetted at me personally for a while but the post you made wouldve been better suited in a pm dontya think?</P> <P> </P> <p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:38 AM</span>

Big Da

11-03-2005, 07:39 PM

<P>Well when I type forum troll in on google the first reponse i get is...</P> <P><SPAN>An "<B>Internet troll</B>" or "<B>Forum Troll</B>" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. </SPAN><FONT face=Arial size=2>A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.</FONT><SPAN><BR> <BR>A classic CureZone troll is trying to make us believe that he is a skeptic. <FONT color=#ffff00>He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude</FONT>, "searching for the truth", flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. Troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them.<BR><BR>While he tries to present himself as a skeptic looking for truth ... his messages usually sound as <FONT color=#ffff00>if it is the responsibility of other forum members to provide evidence</FONT> that what forum is all about is legitimate science.<BR></SPAN></P> <DIV>I know this is a childish thing to post but it did make me laugh :smileyvery-happy:</DIV>

SenorPhrog

11-03-2005, 07:42 PM

You made me laugh just by using "forum" and "legitimate science" in the same sentence.

bigmak20

11-03-2005, 07:46 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Big Dave wrote: <p>Well when I type forum troll in on google the first reponse i get is...</p> <p><span>An "<b>Internet troll</b>" or "<b>Forum Troll</b>" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. </span><font face="Arial" size="2">A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.</font><span> A classic CureZone troll is trying to make us believe that he is a skeptic. <font color="#ffff00">He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude</font>, "searching for the truth", flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. Troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them.While he tries to present himself as a skeptic looking for truth ... his messages usually sound as <font color="#ffff00">if it is the responsibility of other forum members to provide evidence</font> that what forum is all about is legitimate science.</span></p> <div>I know this is a childish thing to post but it did make me laugh :smileyvery-happy:</div><hr></blockquote>it bears repeating: "</span><span><span>While he tries to present himself as a skeptic looking for truth ... his messages usually sound as <font color="#ffff00">if it is the responsibility of other forum members to provide evidence</font> that what forum is all about is legitimate science." <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span> </span></span><div></div>

Big Da

11-03-2005, 07:48 PM

<P>Hey! :smileytongue: I'm not the one auging statistics neither did i write the atricle :smileywink:</P>

Timaarit

11-03-2005, 09:11 PM

<P>**REMOVED FLAMES**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:21 AM</span>

BenEm

11-03-2005, 09:49 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>Cast pre-pull reactives. Place Sacred Redoubt and Glory of Combat on primary tank. Cast Glory of Combat on second highest autoattack melee. If it's a multiple opponent encounter, cast atoning fate right off and use minor heals as necessary. If it's not, and you're facing a single target, use reproach or mark of kings as needed, depending on your own group composition and how hard the target is.</P> <P>If, at any point, the target starts slamming your group hard and you have absolutely no heals available , use Shielding Faith (if facing spell casters) or Prostrate and try to regain control of the situation. There are very, very few situations where I feel I can't control the healing in a group, and even then, I would have to wonder exactly how any other healer would do better. </P> <P>If you feel other healers are better than Templars, then perhaps you're playing the wrong class. It may not be very diplomatic of me to say this, but it's a realistic truth, isn't it? If you're not happy where you are, then why are you there? I have to wonder at the logic behind this. </P> <P>For months, Templars were THE healer. We were so far above the abilities of other healers that we were seen as the ONLY healer to have. Now, other priests are able to at least handle situations in groups that they previously could not. They spent months asking to be able to heal their groups, and now they can. NO, they cannot heal as well as Templars in most situations, but they at least have a more solidified place in groups now as a primary or even only healer. </P> <P>So, it stands to reason then that many of those who chose to play as Templars did so because they wanted to be THE healers. They overlooked our deficiencies in other areas because we were so unquestionably considered the only real healer that could realistically keep any group alive. Therefore, it's my belief that many who originally chose to play as Templars chose the wrong class, or at least chose for the wrong reasons. </P> <P>We're still the best healers. Yes, it's my opinion, but it's an opinion which I believe I've tried to back with at least attempts at facts. These facts aren't always seen as such, and I've come to the conclusion there's simply no way to convince everyone of what I see. Therefore, I don't try for everyone. I post what I see, as I see it, and hope that I'm able to make a difference, however small, to those who have the authority to make decisions regarding what it is I'm seeing. </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Got a question here ...I notice you still recomend pre casting a reative ....... I have stopped this after the last 10 named pulls I won aggro Immeadiatly and without a quick stun I am dead in 3 hits .. Lucky me I only died twice because of an interupted spell but I have forgone my pre reactives ...has something changed ? </DIV> <DIV>Oh and I have been leveling up A Fury and have to say your on ludes if you dont think healing with them is easier but hey Cub fans believe their team will win the World Series every year so I understand it is humanly possible you could truley believe it .</DIV>

Kendricke

11-03-2005, 10:16 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> rollando wrote:<BR>Kendricke, <DIV><BR>I am not sure you understand the issues many of us are complaining about.<BR><BR>Nobody says that he can't heal anymore. Nobody says the GROUP game has become awful. We still do very well in groups. I have not lost the trust of the ones I used to play with.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What some people say is that they feel kept out from half the content of the game. DOF was designed with many long and interesting SOLO quest paths. These quest paths are simply so tedious to complete as a templar ( 70 seconds to kill a blue arrow down mob at level 52 is the norm - a blue SOLO group forces to run in many cases due to the constant interrupts, etc ... ) that some templars ( I use some instead of many on purpose ) don't dothem anymore.</DIV> <DIV><BR>So, what does a 12.47 % advantage when healing in a group mean when we suffer a 50% disadvantage in doable content ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I for sure would gladly drop mark of kings, involontary curate and a few more spells for a decent soloability. Iknow iam not the only one ...</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Please go read my Data Collection Point for Soloing and Light Grouping discussion before assuming I don't understand the issues related to soloing. I've said many times in many threads that I'd like additional help in the form of a self only damage shield.</P> <P>Keep in mind though that Moorgard and other developers have stated that not all classes solo equally, nor do they intend for all classes to solo equally. Primarily, Templars do better in groups than soloing. We're a support class...and a good one at that. Those spells you list may not help much in soloing (though I'd argue my Mark of Kings divine debuff is quite valuable when I solo), but in a group situation, they help immensely.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

Kendricke

11-03-2005, 10:30 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> BenEmma wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Got a question here ...I notice you still recomend pre casting a reative ....... I have stopped this after the last 10 named pulls I won aggro Immeadiatly and without a quick stun I am dead in 3 hits .. Lucky me I only died twice because of an interupted spell but I have forgone my pre reactives ...has something changed ? <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I don't have an issue so long as the fighter pulls properly. Even if I do grab initial hate, I trust in my group to properly reign in the situation. If that's not happening, I fire off Harmony and sit tight. Remember, the heals are firing off still...whether on me or anyone else in the group. It's more hate, but not nearly so much hate that a fighter can't regain with a taunt. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Honestly, on a named pull, why isn't your fighter able to grab the initial hate right off? What is he or she pulling with? Is it even a taunt? Is the taunt better than Apprentice II? What level is the fighter compared to the target?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Kelahr

11-03-2005, 11:25 PM

<P>Yes, I'm level 35. And yes, I realize that it's easier at my level than higher up. I wouldn't have started this topic if it was just based off of my personal experience in group, and not off of information from friends and guild mates who are 50-60, and the server as a whole. All of the higher level templars (50+) I knew either quit the game or made new characters. I rarely see templars on Neriak anymore, and they were a dime a dozen before.</P> <P>Also, I was waiting the whole time myself. I got this game about a week after it came out, and the fury was my first character. Unlike some other people, I really don't have a lot of time to dedicate to this game. I play when I can, for how long I can, and that is what it has amounted to. Granted, I have a lot of alts, but if I'd never made another character, I'd probably have grown bored and quit before the changes came through. </P> <DIV>I wasn't saying I wish it'd go back to way it was. I never did. And the way it was it was asinine. I simply apologized as I felt partly responsible for SOE's massive over-reaction, and the nerfing of templars to such a degree. I don't templars needed nerfed, but it's plain to anyone who played this game from launch that furies needed help. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, please, don't go trying to discredit me or anything I say because my character isn't as uber as yours. I've seen and heard just as much of the problem. Lost a few good friends to it, and I'm not happy with it. That's the bottom line, it sucks, and needs fixing :/</DIV>

Raijinn

11-03-2005, 11:25 PM

<DIV>Folks, let's not attack each other please as that will lead to this thread getting shut down.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thanks!</DIV>

Bad_Mojo

11-04-2005, 04:13 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kelahrim wrote:<BR> <P>Yes, I'm level 35. And yes, I realize that it's easier at my level than higher up. I wouldn't have started this topic if it was just based off of my personal experience in group, and not off of information from friends and guild mates who are 50-60, and the server as a whole. All of the higher level templars (50+) I knew either quit the game or made new characters. I rarely see templars on Neriak anymore, and they were a dime a dozen before.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>That happens every time there is a big change. It's not the fault of Furies however, we were always *very* blunt about not wanting anyone else nerfed. This issue is purely SOE, "as a Fury" there is no reason for you to apologize - These changes were coming regardless of what any of the priest classes did.</FONT></P> <P>Also, I was waiting the whole time myself. I got this game about a week after it came out, and the fury was my first character. Unlike some other people, I really don't have a lot of time to dedicate to this game. I play when I can, for how long I can, and that is what it has amounted to. Granted, I have a lot of alts, but if I'd never made another character, I'd probably have grown bored and quit before the changes came through. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>You have more staying power than me then, I quit for about three months <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></FONT></P> <DIV>I wasn't saying I wish it'd go back to way it was. I never did. And the way it was it was asinine. I simply apologized as I felt partly responsible for SOE's massive over-reaction, and the nerfing of templars to such a degree. I don't templars needed nerfed, but it's plain to anyone who played this game from launch that furies needed help. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>"I feel bad about it, and I just wanted to say, <STRONG>here's one fury hoping for a nerf</STRONG>." That's coming dangerously close to asking for things to go back to the way it was. I'm with you, I'm hoping Templars get some love... But I'm not going to call for nerfs of another class to do it, much less my own!</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, please, don't go trying to discredit me or anything I say because my character isn't as uber as yours. I've seen and heard just as much of the problem. Lost a few good friends to it, and I'm not happy with it. That's the bottom line, it sucks, and needs fixing :/</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Agree. As a side note, my guild hasn't lost any of it's Templars, but we have lost a couple of Guardians and a caster or two. People are just resistant to change and impatient for fixes. Templars have been shafted for about a month now, given that knee-jerk reaction fixes in an MORPG are almost always a disaster, I think they could have given it a *little* more time.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>