Templar vs Fury -- please give Templars balance (DON'T NERF FURIES!) [Archive]

Caethre

10-26-2005, 05:55 PM

OOC. [I've not posted here for a while, been busy RL, and in my few spare hours, actually playing, not perusing these boards.] As a result of the last set of changes, I finally gave in to the inevitable, and Annaelisa was created. In a matter of a few days, she is a level 22 Fury, and climbing. And you know what? Getting a nuke at level 13 (Chill) and then upgrading it at level 14 as her Master II choice, combined with her nuke/dot line, she was/is mowing through things post-combat revamp that took Felishanna twice as long (at least!) when she was that level, back in the easier pre-LU13 days. I mean, a nuke for 124 at level 14? Felishanna's smite line *at level 53* only does 220 damage (yes, that's only Adept1, but the level difference, come on!). The comparison should be lost on no-one. I know, it is (very) early days yet, but so far, playing Annaelisa has been an exercise in barely controlled power. Yet her heals appear every bit as useful as any clerics, no silly random proc heals, but with snare and SoW to boot. Fury is proving a fun class to play. Please, SoE, do *NOT* nerf the Fury class, to bring it down to Templar's current nadir, the Fury is lovely as it is, and fun to play, without feeling nerfed or ignored. Instead, think again about this 'all priests must heal equally' statement you have pushed on us, after ten months where that was NOT the case. No class should heal as well as a Templar and simultaneously have such huge advantages in other areas of their class. Templars need either to have a definite and clear healing advantage OR be given balance in the other areas as well as healing. Felishanna [53 Templar] Annaelisa [22 Fury] Message Edited by Caethre on 10-26-2005 02:59 PM

Jida

10-26-2005, 06:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote: OOC. [I've not posted here for a while, been busy RL, and in my few spare hours, actually playing, not perusing these boards.] As a result of the last set of changes, I finally gave in to the inevitable, and Annaelisa was created. In a matter of a few days, she is a level 22 Fury, and climbing. And you know what? Getting a nuke at level 13 (Chill) and then upgrading it at level 14 as her Master II choice, combined with her nuke/dot line, she was/is mowing through things post-combat revamp that took Felishanna twice as long (at least!) when she was that level, back in the easier pre-LU13 days. I mean, a nuke for 124 at level 14? Felishanna's smite line *at level 53* only does 220 damage (yes, that's only Adept1, but the level difference, come on!). The comparison should be lost on no-one. I know, it is (very) early days yet, but so far, playing Annaelisa has been an exercise in barely controlled power. Yet her heals appear every bit as useful as any clerics, no silly random proc heals, but with snare and SoW to boot. Fury is proving a fun class to play. Please, SoE, do *NOT* nerf the Fury class, to bring it down to Templar's current nadir, the Fury is lovely as it is, and fun to play, without feeling nerfed or ignored. Instead, think again about this 'all priests must heal equally' statement you have pushed on us, after ten months where that was NOT the case. No class should heal as well as a Templar and simultaneously have such huge advantages in other areas of their class. Templars need either to have a definite and clear healing advantage OR be given balance in the other areas as well as healing. Felishanna [53 Templar] Annaelisa [22 Fury] Message Edited by Caethre on 10-26-2005 02:59 PM <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I agree.. but would perfer "be given balance in the other areas as well as healing."

Kendricke

10-26-2005, 07:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote: Instead, think again about this 'all priests must heal equally' statement you have pushed on us, after ten months where that was NOT the case. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> A clarification of fact: At no time has a developer stated "all preists must heal equally", or anything else. No developer has stated that all classes will solo equally. No, what's been stated was that all classes are balanced at the Archetype level for group situations. Specifically: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> Class balance is always a complicated issue, but the archetype system allows us to manage it much more effectively. Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level. Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well. If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. -Moorgard, November 9, 2004 </BLOCKQUOTE> Can Templars heal a group? Yes. Can Furies? Yes. Do Templars and Furies heal equally well? No. Templars, in general, are the best healers (when all available tools are used). Furies, in general, have the highest DPS contribution to a group (when all available tools are used). Utility is subjective, since some players will prefer even more ways to heal and others will prefer more ways to travel and still more wish for more ways to create damage. Personally, I play a Templar to be the best healer. I don't play a Templar to romp through the lands throwing out massive and powerful magical attacks. When I want that experience, I play my Conjuror or Warlock. When I want a different experience, I play as my Monk or Paladin. When I want yet a different experience, I play as my Swashbuckler or Ranger. Maybe I just spend the day on my Sage/Troubadour. The point is that there's dozens, if not hundreds of ways to experience the game. No one class is going to be all things to all players. It's simply impossible. Sure, I'd love more ways to increase DPS, but in a grouping situations, I believe that's simply not what Templars are for. Without so much as casting a spell, I'm able to heal myself. Last night, we held a for fun "barfight night" in the Maj Dul arena, and then in our Guildhall. I entered a duel against a 51 Fury (I'm 52). She wanted to prove that Furies were better than Templars. I wasn't going to make it easy on her, and was literally able hold out the fight for over 30 minutes without casting spells most of the time, due to my Glory of Combat continually triggering (I was using a slow 2 hander). I watched as time after time, my lowly Adept I Glory of Combat would continually fire off, sometimes up to four times in a row, healing me for hundreds of points of health each shot. The Fury simply couldn't take me down. Sure, she'd get me into the yellow from time to time, and then I'd just stop autoattacking, smite her (3 second pacify), sign her (mez), cast up a heal, drop a reactive, and start attacking her again. Could you blame it on her skill? Certainly. Some will argue the level difference made all the difference. Some will argue that I should not be bringing up dueling in a discussion on grouping. Perhaps it is irrelevant. ...or perhaps I think it illustrates a very relevant difference in basic fundamental perception of our class's focus. Sure, I don't kill fast, but I can make it very HARD to kill me, without even really having to try. In the end, after 35 minutes, we called it a draw. Just because we're not cranking out the DPS doesn't mean our class is broken. If we were able to increase DPS without affecting any other part of our current set up, then I'd be all for it (who wouldn't be?). However, if I had to choose between more damage output at the cost of some of my passive heals, I'd personally vote against such a change. That's what Furies have right now, and I don't want to play a Fury. I want to be the best healer possible for the most situations possible. As a Templar, I feel I get that. I've run numbers and feel that they support my conclusion. Your own mileage may vary. Message Edited by Kendricke on 10-26-2005 08:10 AM

SenorPhrog

10-26-2005, 07:20 PM

Welcome back Caethre. I'm sure you've been missed.... So why is this in the Templar forums again? I'm trying to see exactly what you are complaining about. Is this a sly "Well I'm a fury now because Templar sucks and I dont' wanna play it anymore" or is this a "I'm a Fury now and I don't my class nerfed" complaint? In fact I don't even remember discussion from any Developer about nerfing anything so is this basically an exercise in stirring up more strife? The way I'm reading most of your post is you are coming in here and rubbing what a great time you are having in our face and looking to pick a fight. Feel free to take your happy Fury feelings over to their boards and leave your already stated Templar complaints here. We've already got enough Fury vs Templar drama around here to fill up an afternoon on any daytime drama TV show. And yeah....I'm sure you knew I was going to reply to this so *HUG* enjoy your Fury. Message Edited by Radar-X on 10-26-2005 11:21 AM

KlutchSteele

10-26-2005, 08:04 PM

Ive seen furies come in here and boast that they heal better than a templar. Least thats what its elduing to. To be perfectly honest I think the thought of a fury healing better than a templar is absolutely crazy. Yes furies do ALOT more damage than templars, thats the way they were designed but for keeping a group alive in sticky situations, having to make fast decisions and having those tools to make those decisions, Templar takes the cake of ANY healing class. A good templar working with the tools given to him can keep a group up far longer than any other healing class hands down. Theres nothing to even ponder about when comparing. I have seen numerous occassions with every type of priest class heal in a sticky situation and Templar always comes out on top because of the immense variety and type of ways we can heal and keep a group alive. Thats it in a nutshell.

Caethre

10-26-2005, 08:16 PM

OOC. It's way too early for me to make statements like that, only that so far, I feel I can heal approximately as effectively as I remember I could as a Templar at this point (admittedly very vague, so don't call me on that one), but have vastly better DPS/Utility at this point (that is far from vague), and so that overall, the Druid class feels much stronger than the cleric class right now. I am of course mostly referring to SOLOING at this point, as in the lower levels, most characters solo a lot (and many of us continue to solo a lot later too). My point in posting, however, is, very far from rubbing anyone's face in anything, that I love my Templar class, and feel very much as a Templar and not a Fury (despite having some low-level fun with Annaelisa right now). However, this is a great place to get feedback and views with comments to the developers, and we are all allowed to post here, not just three or four people who think everything is fine and anyone who disagrees is made unwelcome. Until the balance is restored, whenever any of you have a comment to make or an observation to report, please do so, without feeling bullied. We all love our Templar class here, and only want the best for it, and part of that, is to represent the largely felt view that we are hugely underbalanced as a class compared to the other healers. I am just going one step further, and actually trying out one of the other healing classes, and reporting my findings so far. Each person's reaction can be ... their own. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Felishanna / Annaelisa

Raijinn

10-26-2005, 08:20 PM

Ok folks, let's make sure this doesn't turn into a flame war. Thanks!

Antryg Mistrose

10-26-2005, 08:40 PM

Caethre, I'm assuming you levelled the fury solo? If so, there are enough threads here on templar soloing, so either sony fixes it, or they don't. Fury does look good, at least the option to solo is there, but thats not 46 levels I'd be loosing, but 90 (44 provisioner on this char). I'd like to see solo templering viable. It never has been, but that didn't use to matter.

Caethre

10-26-2005, 08:47 PM

OOC. Yes, that was mostly soloing on Annaelisa (not all, but most). And yes, I totally agree, and Felishanna is not just a 53 Templar, but also a 60 Sage, so I am in the same position. Felishanna.

Brocc

10-26-2005, 09:20 PM

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: If we were able to increase DPS without affecting any other part of our current set up, then I'd be all for it (who wouldn't be?). However, if I had to choose between more damage output at the cost of some of my passive heals, I'd personally vote against such a change.<hr></blockquote>And this is probably what would have to happen. If you bump up Templar DPS you'll bump into Inquisitors - a bunch of our utility involves reactive damage/offense (like templar's involves reactive healing/defense). If Templar DPS approached Inquisitor DPS you'd see us asking - so what's our utility? If you balance cleric DPS - shouldn't we get that templar bonus healing? Maybe bump up cleric DPS? But I bet shaman aren't too thrilled with their level of DPS either. They could make claims to healing utility and the option to wear plate. I guess the point is: You can't rebalance Templars in a vacuum, or by comparing against furies and forgetting the 4 other priests.

Kendricke

10-26-2005, 10:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Broccli wrote: I guess the point is: You can't rebalance Templars in a vacuum, or by comparing against furies and forgetting the 4 other priests. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you for the perspective. I truly believe this is the most correct view.

Eileithia

10-26-2005, 10:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Broccli wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: If we were able to increase DPS without affecting any other part of our current set up, then I'd be all for it (who wouldn't be?). However, if I had to choose between more damage output at the cost of some of my passive heals, I'd personally vote against such a change. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>And this is probably what would have to happen. If you bump up Templar DPS you'll bump into Inquisitors - a bunch of our utility involves reactive damage/offense (like templar's involves reactive healing/defense). If Templar DPS approached Inquisitor DPS you'd see us asking - so what's our utility? If you balance cleric DPS - shouldn't we get that templar bonus healing? Maybe bump up cleric DPS? But I bet shaman aren't too thrilled with their level of DPS either. They could make claims to healing utility and the option to wear plate. I guess the point is: You can't rebalance Templars in a vacuum, or by comparing against furies and forgetting the 4 other priests. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> This is exactly the point. You cannot compare 1 class to 1 other class.. you have to look at the whole picture.. Also to add to that.. people are looking at what the other classes have that they don't, and not realizing they have skills and abilities that the other classes do not have.. Not every class is a Templar (Cleric) with extra stuff tacked on.. We don't all heal the same, but we do our job as priests as well as the others.. just much different ways at going at it. They didn't take all the classes and say.. "ok.. Templars are good.. let's leave them alone and make all the other classes a Templar.. and then to make them different, we'll give Druids more DPS, Shamen more Debuffs, and Inquisitors a mix of both but leave all their healing identical to Templars" That's simply not the case.. you DO have the best healing, Furys DO have the best DPS, Defilers DO have the best Debuffs and all others are a mix and mash in the middle.. Inquisitors are currently the best "jack of all trades" they are the most equal as far as Offensive = Defensive.

Xerxess

10-27-2005, 12:42 AM

meh...they should just nerf all the healers at once and do a whole new revamp on all the priest classes. Pesky Furies

bigmak20

10-27-2005, 01:06 AM

<blockquote><hr>Duntzzzz wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Broccli wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Kendricke wrote: If we were able to increase DPS without affecting any other part of our current set up, then I'd be all for it (who wouldn't be?). However, if I had to choose between more damage output at the cost of some of my passive heals, I'd personally vote against such a change. <hr> </blockquote>And this is probably what would have to happen.If you bump up Templar DPS you'll bump into Inquisitors - a bunch of our utility involves reactive damage/offense (like templar's involves reactive healing/defense). If Templar DPS approached Inquisitor DPS you'd see us asking - so what's our utility? If you balance cleric DPS - shouldn't we get that templar bonus healing?Maybe bump up cleric DPS? But I bet shaman aren't too thrilled with their level of DPS either. They could make claims to healing utility and the option to wear plate.I guess the point is: You can't rebalance Templars in a vacuum, or by comparing against furies and forgetting the 4 other priests. <hr> </blockquote> This is exactly the point. You cannot compare 1 class to 1 other class.. you have to look at the whole picture.. Also to add to that.. people are looking at what the other classes have that they don't, and not realizing they have skills and abilities that the other classes do not have.. Not every class is a Templar (Cleric) with extra stuff tacked on.. We don't all heal the same, but we do our job as priests as well as the others.. just much different ways at going at it. They didn't take all the classes and say.. "ok.. Templars are good.. let's leave them alone and make all the other classes a Templar.. and then to make them different, we'll give Druids more DPS, Shamen more Debuffs, and Inquisitors a mix of both but leave all their healing identical to Templars" That's simply not the case.. you DO have the best healing, Furys DO have the best DPS, Defilers DO have the best Debuffs and all others are a mix and mash in the middle.. Inquisitors are currently the best "jack of all trades" they are the most equal as far as Offensive = Defensive.<hr></blockquote> Even with the most optimistic Kendricke-esque numbers we heal very marginally better. Even with the most pessimistic Kendricke-esque numebrs for Fury dmg and optimistic Kendricke-esque numbers for Templar damage the Templars are AT LEAST half (that's TWO FULL FACTORS not a margin) the DPS of a Fury. And almost all parses have us at 3 times worse or even lower. "DO have the best" looses it's luster when it's a fraction in one case and 300% in another.

Kendricke

10-27-2005, 01:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote: Even with the most optimistic Kendricke-esque numbers we heal very marginally better. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Care to post a quote from those numbers I've listed? I've sent some parses on DPS and healing numbers to the developers...but I don't recall posting any heal numbers here yet. It's possible I'm mistaken and I've posted numbers somewhere and merely forgotten that, but would you be so kind as to provide an actual link to some of those "Kendricke-esque" healing numbers I've posted? Better yet, what parses have you run? I do feel that many of my critics ignore the numbers I do post and call their accuracy into question when they don't match up with their personal agendas, but immediately reference me when they feel the numbers do support them. Even then, how many of those critics are actually out there producing their own parses?

Eileithia

10-27-2005, 01:20 AM

Yes.. but you're just looking at Templar vs. Fury, and Healing vs. DPS.. there are a lot of other factors.. like Buffs / Debuffs / Stuns / Armor Availability / etc. etc. etc. Look at the WHOLE picture.. that's the point of that post. (And don't forget the other 4 classes) Fury's are not as UBER L33T as you make them out to be.. Yes they Solo better, but they don't have nearly the amount of tools or options available to them as a Templar for how to maintain HP in a fight for a group or raid, and really that's more important to any healer than DPS. You want to be the best at healing, and the best at DPS / Buffing / Debuffing / "Utility" etc... If you were, there would be no reason for anyone to choose any of the other architypes at all. People choose a Templar for grouping for safety and reliability.. they definately don't choose a Fury for DPS. And again.. for those that don't get it.. 5% increase in healing will keep you alive when [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] hit's the fan.. 300% increase in DPS will not. Message Edited by Duntzzzz on 10-26-2005 02:23 PM

bigmak20

10-27-2005, 01:24 AM

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> bigmak2010 wrote:Even with the most optimistic Kendricke-esque numbers we heal very marginally better. <hr> </blockquote> Care to post a quote from those numbers I've listed? I've sent some parses on DPS and healing numbers to the developers...but I don't recall posting any heal numbers here yet. It's possible I'm mistaken and I've posted numbers somewhere and merely forgotten that, but would you be so kind as to provide an actual link to some of those "Kendricke-esque" healing numbers I've posted? Better yet, what parses have you run? I do feel that many of my critics ignore the numbers I do post and call their accuracy into question when they don't match up with their personal agendas, but immediately reference me when they feel the numbers do support them. Even then, how many of those critics are actually out there producing their own parses? <hr></blockquote>You haven't posted healing numbers Kendricke? Wow. Aren't you always telling people to post numbers to back their assertions? You assert constantly that Templar's are the best healers (hence my optimistic Kendricke-esque analogy) and you haven't posted numbers? You should take your own advise.

Sute

10-27-2005, 01:39 AM

Any healer in the game can keep a group alive in a group situation. It does not require much at all. Basing just off that alone is not going to cut it. Group mobs are so easy now(this is a whole new story in itself). I am happy with my templar come group/raid time. However, i dont raid all day and i would like to do writs/solo some. I find this to be too boring and far too slow to do. Games are meant to be fun, solo'ing solo mobs at this speed rate is not fun..and its even less fun when you see other classes come in and swing a two handed sword one time and one shot the mobs(or nearly one shot the mobs) or seeing a furies ring of fire mow down multiple mobs at the same time, while it takes me longer to kill 1 mob. Add to the fact that they are in no more danger than i am, means its not balanced. I could understand it if my heavy armor saved me, but simple fact is it really does not save me. I still get stunned and crippled just the same as someone with lighter armor. Judging smite deal 300 damage at lvl 60 with adept 1 spells(the upgrade to adept iii is not worth a pearl) neither is buying INT. gear. I did not get to lvl 50 and farm the best wisdom gear to be now told, the game has changed now you need int gear...add to that, that int gear does not really help me in a big enough amount to make me want to go and spend xxplat just so i can solo a little better. I dont want to solo as good as xxxxx class, i want to solo where its fun and not as tedious as it is right now. I am happy come raid time with my class, but please make it a little more fun to be able to solo when i must. Dont make me overpowerd, i dont want that, but please give me a little something extra, its all i ask.

Gcha

10-27-2005, 03:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: Even then, how many of those critics are actually out there producing their own parses? <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> I certainly am. Personally, I'm parsing fun. The way I do that is I go play my templar and I look at the clock at the point when I start thinking I should log off and go do something else like clean up the kitchen, or maybe just go make food or drink with my provisioner. I then subtract my starting time to get the numbers for the session. From extensive statistical analysis, there seems to be a downward trend in time played. Oh yeah, I also then factor in my weight the next morning. From years of experience at this I've found that the more bored I am the more I eat. Fortunately, my scale registers in tenths of pounds so it is possible to keep very close watch on this. And for the final element of the equation, I multiply the number of times I've checked my email that day to see if a Vanguard beta invite arrived, and multiply that by 0.3 (so as not to give undue weight to that factor) before adding it in. Obviously it's nobody's fault but mine if I don't throughly enjoy playing this magnificently conceived and perfectly executed templar which has been bestowed upon us - this heavenly creation which at this juncture in time obviously constitutes templar perfection, but, nevertheless, in my own humble and deficient way, I feel fun is a reasonable thing to look at. Maybe when I see your numbers I'll have more fun though. Could happen huh.

ispoki

10-27-2005, 04:23 AM

Lol

Supernova17

10-27-2005, 05:05 AM

The flaw in the great Everquest matrix is that Sony will never be able to please everyone. They will never be able to balance everything perfectly. There will ALWAYS be people who feel that they are playing a weak class or that they have been nerfed. There will ALWAYS be people who feel like thier class has godly powers and enjoy every minute of playing it. 4 Arch-Types, 8 Classes, 16 Sub-Classes, millions of players, millions of encounters and billions of different playstyles, preferences and varying degrees of natural and learned skill in gaming. Honestly, this game cannot be balanced and everyone will never be happy at the same time. The best we can do is make the best of the situation with what we've got and excel in our area of specialty.

sabrexlan

10-27-2005, 07:21 AM

Does a fury out heal a templar? That doesnt have a blanket answer but it comes down to reactive versus HOT. As a broad generalization on a plate class probably not as reactives will always dump more heals in a shorter time and the mitigated hits are often less than the healing amount. On a avoidance class probably yes as my reactives trigger much less often and heal for less than the occassional unmitigated hits. The reactive group heal on the mobs death is probably the only templar healing advantage, the rest of the special procing heal lines (involuntary healer mark of X) either heal for smallish amounts, cant be relied on, or dont help a player not in melee. As a lvl 54 templar I feel like a specialist healer without the right tools. In all the healing jobs other than healing the MT in a group or raid the templar is a second rate healer. We are slowest to react with the longest casting heals, have a recast hole between the 2 direct heals and have only procing heals ill suited to casters or avoidance tanks. The absence of DPS or utility wouldnt be a problem IF THE SPECIALIST HEALER had appropriate tools to keep to other than non plate tanks healed. We lost debuffs, group cures and gained a long recast non-epic stun in the update ie reinforcing the view the class has 1 purpose main tank healing. As the moment if I wasnt level 54 I would reroll a Fury in a instant just to get quicker better direct heals and a HOT, as it stands now I soldier on hoping for a change and knowing I am a 1 trick reactive heal pony. The templar class as it is now is very tedious and boring to play. You just let the computer play and like a slot machine press 1 of 4 icons as the spells recycle. If a add joins the fray or someone non plate tank gets agro you better hope you got a Fury in the group to use their quicker direct heals or a HOT which is guarrenteed to deliver a heal. Im checking for my vanguard invite as well! Message Edited by sabrexlanys on 10-26-2005 08:24 PM

Kayle

10-27-2005, 01:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: Even then, how many of those critics are actually out there producing their own parses? <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> I certainly am. Personally, I'm parsing fun. The way I do that is I go play my templar and I look at the clock at the point when I start thinking I should log off and go do something else like clean up the kitchen, or maybe just go make food or drink with my provisioner. I then subtract my starting time to get the numbers for the session. From extensive statistical analysis, there seems to be a downward trend in time played. Oh yeah, I also then factor in my weight the next morning. From years of experience at this I've found that the more bored I am the more I eat. Fortunately, my scale registers in tenths of pounds so it is possible to keep very close watch on this. And for the final element of the equation, I multiply the number of times I've checked my email that day to see if a Vanguard beta invite arrived, and multiply that by 0.3 (so as not to give undue weight to that factor) before adding it in. Obviously it's nobody's fault but mine if I don't throughly enjoy playing this magnificently conceived and perfectly executed templar which has been bestowed upon us - this heavenly creation which at this juncture in time obviously constitutes templar perfection, but, nevertheless, in my own humble and deficient way, I feel fun is a reasonable thing to look at. Maybe when I see your numbers I'll have more fun though. Could happen huh. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> LOL :smileyvery-happy:

Supernova17

10-27-2005, 02:21 PM

<blockquote><hr>sabrexlanys wrote:Im checking for my vanguard invite as well!<hr></blockquote>Can I have your stuff? :smileytongue:

KingOfF00LS

10-27-2005, 06:57 PM

I don't know about Furies so won't comment on that, but I did roll up a Druid, and he is now a level 20 Warden. He is easily far, far more balanced and powerful a character than the Templar. There's no contest.

Caethre

10-27-2005, 07:27 PM

OOC. I wanted to post an update on this, and here it is. Last night I actually joined a more traditional group for the first time as a Fury, just after I had hit level 23 (previously it was all solo or strange duo/trio group makeups with no tank, etc). There was ust a trio of us - 24 Beserker, 23 Fury, 23 Conjuror. We decided to kill the Heroic gnolls in Thunderring Steppes craters, they are all blue con level 20-22 groups if I recall correctly, a decent challenge for a group of three with very average gear (mine is all treasured, no legendary at all, but my spells are mostly adept3, well those up to level 19 are, the rest are still App1). I spent a fair proportion of my power healing the pet and the main tank (who was in mostly handcrafted and treasured). But as would be typical for such groups, I spent at least half of my power in nukes. Those nukes for over 300 are really nice at level 23, I noticed. But my groupmates noticed too. Infact, the Conjuror kept commenting you are *cough* overpowered, lol. We made a full level in a couple of hours, and that was not pushing it, we were chatting and relaxed, not hardcore grinding. Now, it is a peak, at 23, as that nuke will serve me until the 30s, and Ive just got it. Mind you, it is only App1, as I had only* just levelled before joining the group. So, whether it is "overpowered" or not is debatable. What is not debatable is this. First, the heals are excellent, as good as Felishanna-the-Templars seemed at that level, and I had no issue at all keeping the tank and pet alive against these heroic groups, even when we got roaming adds (when we got too near those undead, hehe, don't ask). However, my contribution to damage was excellent, far in excess of what ANY Templar could have done in that same group at anywhere near that level. This really is not a debate anymore from my perspective, it is so 'bleeding obvious'. As I have posted elsewhere, you have my report, if you doubt me - try it yourself, it doesnt take long to level a character to 23 or so. At level 23 at least, taking a 23 Templar over a 23 Fury is *never ever* going to happen for anyone with a clue, unless it is a personal friend. strongly suspect this will continue to apply at all levels in XP groups, trios, duos and when it comes to soloing ... poor Templars. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Felishanna / Annaelisa.

Kendricke

10-27-2005, 07:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: Even then, how many of those critics are actually out there producing their own parses? <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> I certainly am. Personally, I'm parsing fun. The way I do that is I go play my templar and I look at the clock at the point when I start thinking I should log off and go do something else like clean up the kitchen, or maybe just go make food or drink with my provisioner. I then subtract my starting time to get the numbers for the session. From extensive statistical analysis, there seems to be a downward trend in time played. Oh yeah, I also then factor in my weight the next morning. From years of experience at this I've found that the more bored I am the more I eat. Fortunately, my scale registers in tenths of pounds so it is possible to keep very close watch on this. And for the final element of the equation, I multiply the number of times I've checked my email that day to see if a Vanguard beta invite arrived, and multiply that by 0.3 (so as not to give undue weight to that factor) before adding it in. Obviously it's nobody's fault but mine if I don't throughly enjoy playing this magnificently conceived and perfectly executed templar which has been bestowed upon us - this heavenly creation which at this juncture in time obviously constitutes templar perfection, but, nevertheless, in my own humble and deficient way, I feel fun is a reasonable thing to look at. Maybe when I see your numbers I'll have more fun though. Could happen huh. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> If you're not having fun, why are you playing? To me, that's like someone coming to me saying: <UL> <LI>I can't stand this bed of nails! It hurts me soooo badly. Every morning I wake up with massive wounds in my back that take HOURS to wrap with new bandages. Oh well, I think I'll go to bed now. OWWWWWWwwwwww..... </LI> <LI>This glass of milk tastes so horrid. I think I'm going to vomit every time I smell it. I can't believe I keep buying this milk from that guy who wanders by my house every day. Oh well, here he comes now. I better go get my wallet. EWWWWWWWWwwwwww.... </LI> <LI>I can't stand dating this woman. The way she looks, the insipid things she says, how she keeps spending money but won't get a job. Why can't I find a woman to date that doesn't demean me all the time. Oh well, here comes the bride! I DOOOOOOOooooooooo....</LI></UL> There's a difference between constructive criticism and venting. If you're not happy with the class, then try to come up with reasons why. If it's not "fun", then try to come up with reasons why. If the reasons seem to be too much, then ask yourself why it is you're playing that class at all - don't just keep doing it as if you're unable to quit. If the grass looks greener elsewhere, then go find out if it really is. Try another class. Try another game. Don't treat Everquest 2 like religion or an addiction. It's not the only game on the market. It really isn't. Try to find out what's missing by playing other games for comparision - the developers do! If you don't like playing as a Templar, then perhaps you could try a Fury...or a Mystic...or a Paladin. All of this is subjective though. I can't compare your "fun" to my "fun". I play Templar for different reasons that you do, apparantly. I'm pretty sure that if you asked any 10 Templars why they choose to continue playing as a Templar you'll get 11 different answers. So comparing fun to fun isn't a valid comparison. There's no way to quantify it anyway. However, when claims are made that "Templars aren't the best healers", or "I can't keep my group standing anymore", or "soloing takes 5 minutes", then I can assure you that players like me who live to find out the truth of the facts will wander along with examples showing that Templars are healing better than other priests; that Templars can keep groups standing; and soloing takes far less than 5 minutes. As sure as the sun is in the sky, if you post an example of something that cannot be done, another Templar will come on in showing how they did it. So, as much as I can't argue whether or not the game or the class is "fun" for you, I can and will continue to find out where the actual facts of the matter are. Message Edited by Kendricke on 10-27-2005 08:52 AM

Kendricke

10-27-2005, 07:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KingOfF00LS wrote: I don't know about Furies so won't comment on that, but I did roll up a Druid, and he is now a level 20 Warden. He is easily far, far more balanced and powerful a character than the Templar. There's no contest. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> I'm glad you're enjoying your Warden. I enjoy my Templar. I also enjoy my Mystic. My fiance enjoys her Fury. Since you're a warden now, I recommend the following discussions for you in the Warden forums. **REMOVED PERSONAL ATTACK** <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=16&message.id=10184" target=_blank>Utility in a grp?</A> Quote: "He then mentioned our Evac, which I also think is a weak argument. How often do you honestly find yourself evacing in a grp? I swear that spell takes so long to cast that it is virtually useless other then as a way to get around certain zones faster, or to get to the exit of a zone when you're leaving a grp. Not to mention the fact that Templar's have Odyssey which is every bit as usefull" <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> Quote: "Clerics, specifically templars, like to swear we have way more and way better utility for some reason.. eq1 thinking..?" Quote: "It seems like a common templar belief that they should heal better, and we have more utility. Good thing is, some templars are reasonable and do not think like that. Looking at their boards, i see them complain that we heal better than they do, and they say we have uber utility with spells such as our root, and their mez is useless. Once again, I think it is totally false, and not all templars agree with that." <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=16&message.id=10392" target=_blank>Sorry Lockeye, not good enough</A> Quote: Almost nothing has changef in the way we can direct heal. We still have to spam spells out just to get come near to a non-Warden DH figure. Quote: "Seems like SOE and you want to take the warden in different directions. If you want to have good Direct Heals, you should consider a templar or inq. Meanwhile, I enjoy my warden because I wanted a hybrid-healer with higher DPS and utility. This is exactly what I got." Quote: "I really like the changes and could live with it the way it is in terms of the core healing stuff. BUT In my opinion the only thing really lacking is that as a warden I don't feel like I have much of any utility. In particular no defensive utility." <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=16&message.id=9916" target=_blank>They want numbers? How about these.</A> Quote: "Well, it's official. This is now just like EQ1. The most powerful healers in the game (Templars/Clerics) are coming to the boards of the healers that completely suck (Wardens/Druids) to whine about how Templars/Clerics aren't really so good." Quote: "I have asked you time and time again to show exactly what it is that wardens bring to the endgame now. What do we have that will justify us being in the MT group? And if not in the MT group, what benefits are we bringing to the other groups? We certainly don't buff DPS like a fury or inq can. Our DHs will be laughable because they just don't have the upfront healing that other priests do. Yes, I am sure you will continue to find some way to belittle the valid concerns of people who actually believe that getting fixed is more important than some useless sense of misguided pride in a broken class." Quote: "Adequate or not, however, it is also clear that we are the worst healer in the game right now. That has to be fixed for me to be satisfied with my class without regard to whether it makes the game too easy. Once we are balanced with all other healers, any amount of tuning up the environment to make the game more challenging is welcomed by me." </BLOCKQUOTE> Message Edited by Kendricke on 10-27-2005 08:51 AMMessage Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on 10-27-2005 11:47 AM

Gcha

10-27-2005, 07:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: Even then, how many of those critics are actually out there producing their own parses? <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> I certainly am. Personally, I'm parsing fun. The way I do that is I go play my templar and I look at the clock at the point when I start thinking I should log off and go do something else like clean up the kitchen, or maybe just go make food or drink with my provisioner. I then subtract my starting time to get the numbers for the session. From extensive statistical analysis, there seems to be a downward trend in time played. Oh yeah, I also then factor in my weight the next morning. From years of experience at this I've found that the more bored I am the more I eat. Fortunately, my scale registers in tenths of pounds so it is possible to keep very close watch on this. And for the final element of the equation, I multiply the number of times I've checked my email that day to see if a Vanguard beta invite arrived, and multiply that by 0.3 (so as not to give undue weight to that factor) before adding it in. Obviously it's nobody's fault but mine if I don't throughly enjoy playing this magnificently conceived and perfectly executed templar which has been bestowed upon us - this heavenly creation which at this juncture in time obviously constitutes templar perfection, but, nevertheless, in my own humble and deficient way, I feel fun is a reasonable thing to look at. Maybe when I see your numbers I'll have more fun though. Could happen huh. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> If you're not having fun, why are you playing? To me, that's like someone coming to me saying: <UL> <LI>I can't stand this bed of nails! It hurts me soooo badly. Every morning I wake up with massive wounds in my back that take HOURS to wrap with new bandages. Oh well, I think I'll go to bed now. OWWWWWWwwwwww..... </LI> <LI>This glass of milk tastes so horrid. I think I'm going to vomit every time I smell it. I can't believe I keep buying this milk from that guy who wanders by my house every day. Oh well, here he comes now. I better go get my wallet. EWWWWWWWWwwwwww.... </LI> <LI>I can't stand dating this woman. The way she looks, the insipid things she says, how she keeps spending money but won't get a job. Why can't I find a woman to date that doesn't demean me all the time. Oh well, here comes the bride! I DOOOOOOOooooooooo....</LI></UL> There's a difference between constructive criticism and venting. If you're not happy with the class, then try to come up with reasons why. If it's not "fun", then try to come up with reasons why. If the reasons seem to be too much, then ask yourself why it is you're playing that class at all - don't just keep doing it as if you're unable to quit. If the grass looks greener elsewhere, then go find out if it really is. Try another class. Try another game. Don't treat Everquest 2 like religion or an addiction. It's not the only game on the market. It really isn't. Try to find out what's missing by playing other games for comparision - the developers do! If you don't like playing as a Templar, then perhaps you could try a Fury...or a Mystic...or a Paladin. All of this is subjective though. I can't compare your "fun" to my "fun". I play Templar for different reasons that you do, apparantly. I'm pretty sure that if you asked any 10 Templars why they choose to continue playing as a Templar you'll get 11 different answers. So comparing fun to fun isn't a valid comparison. There's no way to quantify it anyway. However, when claims are made that "Templars aren't the best healers", or "I can't keep my group standing anymore", or "soloing takes 5 minutes", then I can assure you that players like me who live to find out the truth of the facts will wander along with examples showing that Templars are healing better than other priests; that Templars can keep groups standing; and soloing takes far less than 5 minutes. As sure as the sun is in the sky, if you post an example of something that cannot be done, another Templar will come on in showing how they did it. So, as much as I can't argue whether or not the game or the class is "fun" for you, I can and will continue to find out where the actual facts of the matter are. Message Edited by Kendricke on 10-27-2005 08:52 AM <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sorry Kendricke, but you don't get to control what complaints are stated here and how they are stated. I have discussed a number of specific areas in the past, and you simply don't hear anything that doesn't fit into your numbers approach. The reality is you have no idea what we're talking about. Live with it. The PRIMARY element of the game is fun. I wish it wasn't necessary to state the obvious AGAIN, but I guess it is. When the balance between fun and not fun reaches an unacceptable level for me, I will leave. At this point, along with a lot of other people, I choose to continue playing (although perhaps not for long). You can live with that too. I DO play other games - I've played every one but WOW - and that's where I get some of MY perspective, rather than from my calculator. Unfortunately, you describe constructive criticism as what you say (although you don't seem to say anything critical), and describe what everyone else says as venting, shouting, etc. Bzzt. Sorry. You're not the final arbiter here. Go ahead and deal with your numbers until the end of time. God forbid they listen to you or this game will merely get worse, but you do have the right to state your positions. Too much number-crunching and too little vision and artistry is already the problem in the game. YES, I would like to get them away from this focus on numbers and toward more focus on vision, artistry, concepts, diversity, and flavor. Thus, I and others will continue to state our perspectives. We don't even disagree much, if at all, concerning current templar ability to keep a group alive and ability to solo. That's where the agreement ends though. It is not enough fun, it is not sufficiently rewarding and stimulating, and it is NOT cleric-esque. There is still time to fix this, however, so I will still lobby for that. Message Edited by Gchang on 10-27-2005 08:57 AM

SenorPhrog

10-27-2005, 09:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote: We don't even disagree much, if at all, concerning current templar ability to keep a group alive and ability to solo. That's where the agreement ends though. It is not enough fun, it is not sufficiently rewarding and stimulating, and it is NOT cleric-esque. There is still time to fix this, however, so I will still lobby for that. Message Edited by Gchang on 10-27-2005 08:57 AM <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> The problem we're having with this Gchang is all the definitions of "fun" are coming from pre LU#13. They are rock solid on this and aren't budging. They are refusing to create and tweak content because some classes weren't in line with what they wanted and now they've made the adjustments. You say fix it Gchang....but how? Nobody (in the higher levels) really disagrees we have the ability to heal and most will agree that soloing is a brutally painful thing. The line drawn in that is some people accept we don't have as much of a solo ability and live with it. I'm all about having Templar be a great class to play but even a month later nobody can form a logical consensus on what to do.

Kendricke

10-27-2005, 09:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote: We don't even disagree much, if at all, concerning current templar ability to keep a group alive and ability to solo. That's where the agreement ends though. It is not enough fun, it is not sufficiently rewarding and stimulating, and it is NOT cleric-esque. There is still time to fix this, however, so I will still lobby for that. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> The problem we're having with this Gchang is all the definitions of "fun" are coming from pre LU#13. They are rock solid on this and aren't budging. They are refusing to create and tweak content because some classes weren't in line with what they wanted and now they've made the adjustments. You say fix it Gchang....but how? <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly my point. If I bring my car to the mechanic and say "It doesn't run like it used to - FIX IT NOW!", the mechanic's likely as not to scratch his head and hook my engine's ECM up to a diagnostic computer to see what SID errors are listed. If he finds none, he's likely as not to scratch his head, look at me, and ask me what the problem is. You have to be able to qualify your complaints in some manner which shows what it is you want done. Yes, in some posts you've done this. In others, you simply state that "It is not enough fun, it is not sufficiently rewarding and stimulating, and it is NOT cleric-esque." See, now we're not discussing an objective number set or fact. We're discussing subjective opinion. Now it's your opinion versus other player's opinions. Which player is right? Which player is wrong? How is an opinion more or less "right" than another? Better yet, if none of us can agree on which opinion we want presented, how are the developers supposed to determine which opinion is the "right" opinion? As a wiser man than I stated, "You can't please all of the people all of the time". Message Edited by Kendricke on 10-27-2005 10:31 AM

KingOfF00LS

10-27-2005, 09:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: Since you're a warden now, I recommend the following discussions for you in the Warden forums. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> I think I've made it abundantly clear that I neither request nor value your opinions or recommendations on anything. I'm uninterested in damage control. I'm only interested in the issues.

Gcha

10-27-2005, 10:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote: We don't even disagree much, if at all, concerning current templar ability to keep a group alive and ability to solo. That's where the agreement ends though. It is not enough fun, it is not sufficiently rewarding and stimulating, and it is NOT cleric-esque. There is still time to fix this, however, so I will still lobby for that. Message Edited by Gchang on 10-27-2005 08:57 AM <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> The problem we're having with this Gchang is all the definitions of "fun" are coming from pre LU#13. They are rock solid on this and aren't budging. They are refusing to create and tweak content because some classes weren't in line with what they wanted and now they've made the adjustments. You say fix it Gchang....but how? Nobody (in the higher levels) really disagrees we have the ability to heal and most will agree that soloing is a brutally painful thing. The line drawn in that is some people accept we don't have as much of a solo ability and live with it. I'm all about having Templar be a great class to play but even a month later nobody can form a logical consensus on what to do. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Well, for one thing, my issues are not tied to any particular update. People tend to make an assumption on that, but I don’t ever say that. I will say that, while I don’t have any significant problem with LU 13 (I lobbied for many of those changes), I don’t think the combination of recent updates has done anything to remedy my concerns about the cleric class and has likely made it worse. I DO believe that cleric healing should be superior, and I will believe that until the end of time. I have a pretty good idea what druid and shaman classes are. I like those classes myself. I think it works quite well - much better in fact - to maintain diversity and separate roles. I have no patience for people who pick one class and then whine for it to be another class. But that’s a long topic for another time. I really do believe I have covered quite a few areas rather exhaustively several times. Unlike some =) [not you], I get tired of typing the same thing over and over. And, bearing in mind that my goal is to be heard by the devs - not to convince players who simply have differing philosophies - at some point, I feel the devs have seen what I have to say and gotten anything they are going to get out of it. From that point I tend to try to repeat myself only periodically (to keep the dream alive, lol), when something new arises, or when I may think up some new slant on an issue. It is clear to me from many posts in the forum and private messages that quite a few people understand thoroughly. Hopefully the devs get something out of it. I’ll think about going over it all again, but today is a rather busy day at the office. Maybe later. FWIW, personally I don't find soloing painful ... I rather enjoy it. I do understand that it's important to some to speed it up. Message Edited by Gchang on 10-27-2005 11:09 AM

Gcha

10-27-2005, 10:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote: We don't even disagree much, if at all, concerning current templar ability to keep a group alive and ability to solo. That's where the agreement ends though. It is not enough fun, it is not sufficiently rewarding and stimulating, and it is NOT cleric-esque. There is still time to fix this, however, so I will still lobby for that. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> The problem we're having with this Gchang is all the definitions of "fun" are coming from pre LU#13. They are rock solid on this and aren't budging. They are refusing to create and tweak content because some classes weren't in line with what they wanted and now they've made the adjustments. You say fix it Gchang....but how? <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly my point. If I bring my car to the mechanic and say "It doesn't run like it used to - FIX IT NOW!", the mechanic's likely as not to scratch his head and hook my engine's ECM up to a diagnostic computer to see what SID errors are listed. If he finds none, he's likely as not to scratch his head, look at me, and ask me what the problem is. You have to be able to qualify your complaints in some manner which shows what it is you want done. Yes, in some posts you've done this. In others, you simply state that "It is not enough fun, it is not sufficiently rewarding and stimulating, and it is NOT cleric-esque." Not true Kendricke. As I've said, you can't hear when you don't listen. See, now we're not discussing an objective number set or fact. We're discussing subjective opinion. Now it's your opinion versus other player's opinions. Which player is right? Which player is wrong? How is an opinion more or less "right" than another? Better yet, if none of us can agree on which opinion we want presented, how are the developers supposed to determine which opinion is the "right" opinion? As a wiser man than I stated, "You can't please all of the people all of the time". Message Edited by Kendricke on 10-27-2005 10:31 AM <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>The reality is that you're probably never going to understand what I and others talk about. Your thinking seems to be rather polarized toward the numbers side. That's okay. It's not that important that you and I achieve thorough understanding of each other. What is important is that you allow other people to express their views without this constant badgering and insistence that every post conform with your format and standards. Generally, progress comes from the exchange of diverse views - not from a bunch of people all saying the same thing.

Kendricke

10-27-2005, 10:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <HR> Gchang wrote: You have to be able to qualify your complaints in some manner which shows what it is you want done. Yes, in some posts you've done this. In others, you simply state that "It is not enough fun, it is not sufficiently rewarding and stimulating, and it is NOT cleric-esque." Not true Kendricke. As I've said, you can't hear when you don't listen. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> What's not true? Do you feel it's not true that you need to be able to qualify your complaints in some manner which shows what it is you want done? Do you feel that explaining what you want is not necessary? Do you feel it's not true that you've shown what you want done in some posts? I can quote those posts if you'd like to show that you have done this. Do you feel it's not true that you've stated ""It is not enough fun, it is not sufficiently rewarding and stimulating, and it is NOT cleric-esque." If so, I'm confused, because that was a direct quote from your previous post. I'm listening, but I can't read minds. Simply saying "not true" and then admonishing me for not paying attention didn't explain to me what it is you feel is not true. If you feel it's not important to qualify your complaints in some manner which shows what it is you want done, then by all means, simply repeat that "it's not fun" and I'll scratch my head and wonder what the problem is from your end. Because right now, I'm having fun as a Templar. If you're not, then I can't understand what it is you feel is missing unless you say so. I can listen, but if you don't actually say what it is you want done, how can I be expected to understand what it is you want? Message Edited by Kendricke on 10-27-2005 11:38 AM

Gcha

10-27-2005, 11:20 PM

**PLEASE NO PERSONAL ATTACKS**Message Edited by Raijinnstein's Monster on 10-31-2005 11:14 AM

Jef

10-28-2005, 10:35 AM

Gchang, your posts are classic. I too believe I could keep a group alive , problem is I don't seem to find any. I personally find it depressing to watch (insert class here) 2 levels below me kill 1down arrow + 2 down arrows yellow mobs that takes me four times longer and 60% more power to kill. Not to mention that it seems to me that I have a better chance of dying from the encounter if I fizzle/interrupt at the wrong time. Others can say what they want, but I say that it's not balanced. Message Edited by JeffX on 10-27-2005 11:42 PM

Timaarit

10-28-2005, 01:03 PM

<blockquote><hr>Duntzzzz wrote:And again.. for those that don't get it.. 5% increase in healing will keep you alive when [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] hit's the fan.. 300% increase in DPS will not. Message Edited by Duntzzzz on 10-26-2005 02:23 PM<hr></blockquote>HAH! Say that to fighters who solo a lot better with offensive stance than defensive stance. My monk takes about 15% more damage per second with offensive stance but does 50 to 100% more dps also. End result has always been that I have more hp and power left after combat with offensive stance than defensive stance. Also the fights are significantly shorter. So in every situation, I'd take the dps advantage over health. So I guess you are the one who 'don't get it'.

Caethre

10-28-2005, 02:41 PM

OOC. Just another little update. Annaelisa-the-Fury made level 24 last night, and got to choose her level 23 nuke as Master2. This turned the spell from a max damage of 325 to one that has a max damage of 608. Wow! She was duoing with just a level 24 conjuror with his new pet at Ad3 against the level 21-22 heroic gnoll groups in Thunderring Steppes. That was quite challenging actually, with aggro control on groups of 4, roots, snares, healing and nuking all needed, with quik reactions, to keep things flowing well. It was fun however! Now, compare to Felishanna-the-Templar's latest and biggest nuke when she levelled to 53 last week, the latest in the Strike line. Admittedly this is Adept3 not Master2, but its max damage is 424. Yes, this can be doubled against undead, but against the huge majority of mobs in the game, this is the biggest nuke a Templar has at this level. Now, I must add, the Fury's supernuke has a long recast time (15 seconds), compared to only 8 seconds for the Templar one, so it can be used only once every two HO cycles, not every cycle. So alternate cycles, the Fury falls back on the lesser second and third nuke lines (still very good for that level range, and better than what a Templar has at 24). That said, many blue con solo xp mobs in Thunderring Steppes will drop to 50% health or less from the pull nuke. But put aside the recast times, and ignore just undead opponents, and keep in mind this is Master2 vs Adept3, but even with all these noted, look at the headline data :- <DIV>Level 24 Fury can nuke for 608 (max base damage)</DIV> <DIV>Level 53 Templar can nuke for 424 (max base damage)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Look at the huge level difference. Anyone still calling Templars balanced in solo and small group circumstances? Each day I play Annaelisa, it becomes more and more obvious just how weak our beloved Templar class now is in this domain of play. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Felishanna / Annaelisa</DIV>

LowfyrWildforge

10-28-2005, 02:53 PM

<DIV>THE number one problem for Templars overall is that our abilities don't work very well together. Mez, healing, and doing our damage through melee are the Everquest equivalent of a polka dot tie, plaid shirt, and striped pants. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That's probably why we look like clowns.</DIV>

cadrach

10-28-2005, 04:58 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: A clarification of fact: At no time has a developer stated "all preists must heal equally", or anything else. No developer has stated that all classes will solo equally. Class balance is always a complicated issue, but the archetype system allows us to manage it much more effectively. Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level. Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well. If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. -Moorgard, November 9, 2004 <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Ok Kendricke you stretching here even in your bolded statement it says that members of a given archtype will be able to fill that role equally well. Are you looking for a direct quote on priest specifically? Let me read the above back to you again. just moving some sentences. if you're a priest, you can heal for a group... and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well. Ok i understand that this is not the order the scentences came in but seriously how can anyone that read the quote you posted (not the one I wrote) and not think that their intention was to make it so that all priest acrhtypes will be able to heal equally well. Seriously I dont think I am making any great leaps here. Now on to DPS They never stated we would be able to solo equally, and I understand that. But you can not balance only one aspect of an specific subclass. How is this ballance?

Eileithia

10-28-2005, 06:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Duntzzzz wrote: And again.. for those that don't get it.. 5% increase in healing will keep you alive when [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] hit's the fan.. 300% increase in DPS will not. Message Edited by Duntzzzz on 10-26-2005 02:23 PM <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>HAH! Say that to fighters who solo a lot better with offensive stance than defensive stance. My monk takes about 15% more damage per second with offensive stance but does 50 to 100% more dps also. End result has always been that I have more hp and power left after combat with offensive stance than defensive stance. Also the fights are significantly shorter. So in every situation, I'd take the dps advantage over health. So I guess you are the one who 'don't get it'. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> I guess you missed the part of "when [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] hit's the fan".. I'm not disagreeing that DPS will help you SOLO faster.. I'm talking about when you get those adds, and lots of them in a group situation.. it's the healing that saves you.. Templars are better equipped to handle a mess of adds than a Fury is.. as it should be.. they are dedicated healers.. Please read the whole post.

Gcha

10-28-2005, 06:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LowfyrWildforge wrote: <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>... the Everquest equivalent of a polka dot tie, plaid shirt, and striped pants. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That's probably why we look like clowns.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Bravo! Outstanding and very apt analogy.

noetici

10-29-2005, 06:47 AM

<DIV>Welcome back to Everquest, and congratulations on your new-found Furyness. (no relation to Furries)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm only commenting on this thread because I'm a 45 Fury, and I've seen Templars with LFG flags on. A lot of them. I think part of the problem is the natural dynamic with a group - at 45, I'm largely a *backup* healer. If I have to be main-healer, I'm sufficient. Not perfect, but sufficient as long as the tank isn't aggroing everything in sight. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The various level-based decisions you make as the character levels, will change what the resulting strengths are. For example, I nuke at about 800-900 per cast (about 200-300 DPS btw, because I can't cast them very quickly), but I chose my two main nukes to be the Masters which SOE bestows us with. I soloed through most of my 30's and early 40's, now I do more raiding, and my most recent Master I chose as a group heal. Because of this, I do much, much more DPS than a Templar would. Another Fury could focus their spells on healing, if all of their Masters were heals, they'd do more healing than I would. Considering my highest Adept heal does 500 HP or so, once, that's the only situation where I could see a high level (say, 30+) Fury healing even nearly as well as a Templar. I don't think I've ever seen a Fury that focused so much on healing, anyway. I can keep up a tank, and in most cases, without an issue, but due to my choices while my character was growing, healing takes much more mana than DPS, and thus, more down time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In regards to the OP and the 23 Fury mentioned, when I was 23, I was approximately on par with a Templar at the same level. As time went on, Templars became better at healing than I was. It's become my experience that at an early level, a lot of characters still are pretty equal when it comes to healing abilities. I very distinctly remember being the main healer in groups up until mid-twenties or so, at which point templars and other healing classes surpassed my heals. I remember some Templars complaining at the time that had grouped with me or other Furies because they weren't useful to the group when the Fury was present.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It came to mind that maybe some utility that allows Templars to *avoid* more fights might be really useful. Perhaps a pacify of some sort that causes the enemy to leave you alone. That would make more sense to me then nerfing anyone. I think it makes perfect sense that Templars can't nuke a whole bunch - but it's not vary fair if Templars can't solo when they need to without spending unreasonable amounts of time on each fight. If SOE took away, or greatly reduced, my nuking abilities, all I'd be able to do is whack at things until they got bored with me and gave up. In the meantime before SOE can fix Templars, it greatly assisted me for when I run out of mana to have an imbued weapon. Yeah, it's still slower than my normal nuking, but it helps a heck of a lot when I have no mana. Perhaps Templars could wield an imbued weapon that does more damage than most do, or higher likelihood of being cast.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I've never played a Templar, largely because I'm the sort of person that *needs* to nuke things to death. It's part of my blood. From what I have seen of the Templar problems, I hope they get fixed and the solution is reasonable and fair to all classes, furies, templars, the rest of the healing classes, as well as all of the people that depend on the healing classes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Shavaun Tsukinode, 45 Fury</DIV> <DIV>Legends, Crushbone</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

histogirl72

10-29-2005, 07:40 AM

Here are just some of my observations playing to level 56... Please keep in mind that I do not solo and my normal group consists of two Swashbucklers (currently 57 and 59), a Warlock (60) and a Templar (56). The Templar definitely gets better if you can get passed 53....at 54 you get a better heal and then at 56 you get another. These definitly help with the feeling of being useful again. However, by the time you reach 56 the challenge becomes trying to find mobs that are worth fighting. Currently, Cazels Mesa and Poets Palace (not with a full group but with only the four of us) are the only two instance that are truly offer any challenge. And Poets Palace is a walk in the park with a full group that includes a "real" tank and another healer. With a defiler in the group, I literally did nothing the entire Palace until the very last three mobs. The Ancients Table is fairly easy to do and does not pose much of a challenge. Maidens Gulch is even easily accomplished with our group. Splitpaw seems to have a level cap and we have not gone back to Icy Digs. And we still need to revisit Lockjaws Lair. And I am hoping that we find some more instances as time goes on. I still do not feel as though the Templars have been done justice. Meaning, I think that in order to bring other clases up to par with the main focus - healing - all other areas were considered unimportant. Sure, we get utilities...and I know that my group is grateful for my buffs...but when I grab agro at the beginning of a fight in Cazels and drop dead, I watch the group finish the fight without benefit of my utilities or my heals. So, I wonder how useful they really are. I literally push four buttons in a fight against the cyclops in PoF and only a couple more against the mobs in the instances. I put on single target reactive, two debuffs and if I can time it right, my Force Submission will finish casting right as the mob dies. So now in a group I am faced with the fact that for most of the content out there....I dont really heal (the reactive really isnt needed, I cast it because it makes me feel useful), I often dont have time to debuff, my mez takes too long to cast to be useful, and I add virtually no dps....we all laugh at the Templar DPS when they parse. I do buff them, which they love....but well, that is 6? buttons at the formation of the group and then never again. Keep in mind that this is for normal content, but when you are locked out of all the instances, you are kind of forced to do that if you want to fight stuff. And, I do believe that you can "parse" fun...I know that SOE can. There is not doubt in my mind. I have been "parsing" it since LU 13, and the last time my group had to ask "1 or 2?" while zoning was about a week after PoF came out. That is for any zone that we go into....there are no more TS 1 and TS 2, or Ant 1 or Ant 2, there isnt even a Sinking Sands 1 or Sinking Sands 2. That tells you a lot about what people "feel" about the changes and the state of the game in general. Another thing that I have been "parsing"... guilds on my server that once had enough on at one time to fill their own x4 raids with a few left over, now barely have enough to cover a x2 raid. Says a lot about the way people "feel". I know quite a few of those that just dont "feel" it anymore are Templars and Guardians. SOE can look at their own numbers....canceled accounts, non played characters that are just sitting there, etc. They can look at the numbers that log in every day and how long they stay. I can see it with my own eyes (at least on my server), and I know that it is on a steady decline. That has nothing to do with "facts", it has everything to do with "feel" and "fun". In the end, I still see no mention of the Templars in the LU that is being tested now, I have no hope really that SOE even cares...I see where a dev said "we will look into it", but when I see nothing as a result of that, makes me wonder what they looked into. I am not angry anymore about what others got and I dont have, I just quit looking at all of it. I decided that if I were to enjoy my class, I would just have to focus on Templars...not Furies or Wardens, or whoever...just Templars. Comparing them only makes people stay angry (myself included) because some other class got a bigger "lollipop" than I did.

Ashenshug

10-30-2005, 07:42 PM

**PLEASE NO PERSONAL ATTACKS**Message Edited by Raijinnstein's Monster on 10-31-2005 11:15 AM

SenorPhrog

10-31-2005, 07:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ashenshuger wrote: <DIV>**REMOVED QUOTE**</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> You'll be missed *HUG* I've got a friend who is going for CoV. If it lasts as long as CoH did for him I expect him back in about.....2 months. Message Edited by Raijinnstein's Monster on 10-31-2005 11:15 AM

Sokolov

10-31-2005, 08:37 PM

<div></div>"Templar vs Fury -- please give Templars balance (DON'T NERF FURIES!) " Any increase in one class effectively nerfs all other classes. Why can't people get this concept? <div></div>Message Edited by Sokolov on 10-31-2005 07:44 AM

Sokolov

10-31-2005, 08:44 PM

<blockquote><hr>KlutchSteele wrote:Ive seen furies come in here and boast that they heal better than a templar. Least thats what its elduing to. To be perfectly honest I think the thought of a fury healing better than a templar is absolutely crazy. Yes furies do ALOT more damage than templars, thats the way they were designed but for keeping a group alive in sticky situations, having to make fast decisions and having those tools to make those decisions, Templar takes the cake of ANY healing class. A good templar working with the tools given to him can keep a group up far longer than any other healing class hands down. Theres nothing to even ponder about when comparing. I have seen numerous occassions with every type of priest class heal in a sticky situation and Templar always comes out on top because of the immense variety and type of ways we can heal and keep a group alive. Thats it in a nutshell.<hr></blockquote>Amen to that. In my experience, Druids have the worst ability of the archetypes to handle a tough situation. It's not a player ability issue, they just can't keep up. As a Defiler, I find that my Debuffs are a HUGE part of my healing utility such that pre-wards are incredily efficient in most cases. If I am spam-ward/healing and have no time to debuff, my efficiency goes WAY down. In fact, I've actually let someone die just to get my debuffs off because I know that will keep the group alive whereas saving that one member would have killed the group.<div></div>

bigmak20

10-31-2005, 10:37 PM

Caethre; Thank you for the direct comparisons and having the fortitude to begin leveling up a Fury. I have one.... but when I load my Fury I get so mad I can't play and just spend my evening doing something else other then EQ2. That's not all bad but my game time has been less and less every week which you'd think may be bad for SOE as this seems epidemic with everyone I know. Leveling in this game is not easy -- past mid 30s especially -- so the idea of being "forced" out of my class (my feeling of course not a quantifiable measurement Kendricke and Radar-X) just makes me mad and I don't play. <div></div>

Kayle

10-31-2005, 11:56 PM

<DIV>One point here: The MELEE SKILL of a Fury is better than that of a Templar.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I can say this without parsing a thing because I see it everyday in the game. I play with a Fury in groups and raids and she can out dps me in the MELEE SKILL department any day of the week. It's blatantly obvious. This is not including her thornskin augmentation which provides piercing dps.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So while you're out parsing NUKES, which take time to cast and takes away from healing time, don't forget to parse the MELEE SKILLS. Auto-attack takes no time away from the job of a battle cleric, but nukes, dots and ho's, do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Kendricke

10-31-2005, 11:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kaylena wrote: <DIV>One point here: The MELEE SKILL of a Fury is better than that of a Templar.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I can say this without parsing a thing because I see it everyday in the game. I play with a Fury in groups and raids and she can out dps me in the MELEE SKILL department any day of the week. It's blatantly obvious. This is not including her thornskin augmentation which provides piercing dps.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So while you're out parsing NUKES, which take time to cast and takes away from healing time, don't forget to parse the MELEE SKILLS. Auto-attack takes no time away from the job of a battle cleric, but nukes, dots and ho's, do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, when I get all the little priests lined up, I'll give them identical hammers and let them go on autoattack to verify who has the better melee in a controlled situation.

quetzaqotl

11-01-2005, 12:09 AM

K sorry yes Im a fury on a templar board so shoot me. The melee difference is b/c of the primal fury (single target) buff which adds agi and str and gives 40% dps and 40% haste at 10% chance making you hit for 40% more and 40% as fast. But please compare classes but you can t compare without the real info its more obvious to see the impact of buffs when you see someone buffed offensively solo than it is to see someone buffed defensively solo.

Kayle

11-01-2005, 12:10 AM

**RE-EDITING A POST TO CIRCUMVENT WHAT WAS POSTED BY A MODERATOR IS INAPPROPRIATE IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS THIS PM ME**Message Edited by Raijinnstein's Monster on 10-31-2005 12:46 PM

Kayle

11-01-2005, 12:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote: K sorry yes Im a fury on a templar board so shoot me. The melee difference is b/c of the primal fury (single target) buff which adds agi and str and gives 40% dps and 40% haste at 10% chance making you hit for 40% more and 40% as fast. But please compare classes but you can t compare without the real info its more obvious to see the impact of buffs when you see someone buffed offensively solo than it is to see someone buffed defensively solo. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you for confirming what I already knew, Quetzaqotl <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Some people like Kendricke just enjoy the argument. I'm stating a simple fact that your dps is better then ours and I've seen it from the beginning of the game. It's not to fault you in any way. It just needs to be said because I was hearing a lot about nukes and wondering why no one was talking about melee damage which is part of the dps. Also, considering time taken away from healing, auto-attack is a primary factor when calculating who adds to the dps parses more. This is melee damage and I didn't see it mentioned in the dps portfolio of the battle priests. Message Edited by Kaylena on 10-31-2005 11:21 AM

SenorPhrog

11-01-2005, 12:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote: Caethre; Thank you for the direct comparisons and having the fortitude to begin leveling up a Fury. I have one.... but when I load my Fury I get so mad I can't play and just spend my evening doing something else other then EQ2. That's not all bad but my game time has been less and less every week which you'd think may be bad for SOE as this seems epidemic with everyone I know. Leveling in this game is not easy -- past mid 30s especially -- so the idea of being "forced" out of my class (my feeling of course not a quantifiable measurement Kendricke and Radar-X) just makes me mad and I don't play. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Nobody "forced" you out of your class. You chose to leave it. Leveling isn't easy and I'm finding out it gets even harder as I've made my way into post 50. I still have fun. I still hang out with my guildmates, do quests, and when I get bored on the rare occassion I actually go play an alt. I apologize that we haven't worked out the bugs on the "mad-o-meter" yet. Saying your angry is fine and "feeling" a certain way is fine but how are you going to ask for changes based on how you "feel." The Devs "felt" that LU#13 was the way to go. What makes your feelings more valid than theirs? Thats why I think you need more.

Kendricke

11-01-2005, 01:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Just to clarify, I meant my "little priests" comment as descriptive of the level 14 priest comparison experiment I stated I was going to perform <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=13275&view=by_date_ascending&page=2" target=_blank>here</A> throughout <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=13275&view=by_date_ascending&page=2" target=_blank>this post:</A> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV>I'm going to set a similar challenge, but instead I will challenge other priests to do the same with a Cleric / Templar. Level 14, we'd have the Cleric choose the Master II Radiant Strike (then go smack some undead around in Antonica). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We'll likely have a new shaman, druid, and cleric created at once to get a good baseline. We'll try to pick one race for all three classes as well to cut down on the number of variables and factors, as well as make sure all are outfitted in identical armor with identical spell qualities. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>EDIT: ACK! I was responded to a post that was edited several times between poster and moderator. I've removed references to the original post now.</DIV> Message Edited by Kendricke on 10-31-2005 12:53 PM

Kayle

11-01-2005, 05:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Just to clarify, I meant my "little priests" comment as descriptive of the level 14 priest comparison experiment I stated I was going to perform <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=13275&view=by_date_ascending&page=2" target=_blank>here</A> throughout <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=13275&view=by_date_ascending&page=2" target=_blank>this post:</A> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV>I'm going to set a similar challenge, but instead I will challenge other priests to do the same with a Cleric / Templar. Level 14, we'd have the Cleric choose the Master II Radiant Strike (then go smack some undead around in Antonica). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We'll likely have a new shaman, druid, and cleric created at once to get a good baseline. We'll try to pick one race for all three classes as well to cut down on the number of variables and factors, as well as make sure all are outfitted in identical armor with identical spell qualities. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>EDIT: ACK! I was responded to a post that was edited several times between poster and moderator. I've removed references to the original post now.</DIV> Message Edited by Kendricke on 10-31-2005 12:53 PM <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Nice try, Kendricke. You were talking about nukes and now provide links I never read nor am interested in. I was talking about melee skills. Never ONCE in my post did I reference "little priests". YOU made that reference to denounce what I was saying.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And your added reference that my post was edited by a moderator several times is also indicative of you trying to point that out to God knows whom. You COULD have just edited your post. You CHOSE to make sure what you saw happen here today a news flash.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I know you have been spoken to by SoE to stop this type of activity. I have been now asked to pass on what you wrote since it was you who reported me and not I who reported you. Since I'm now told they only review what is reported, I'll have to get back to them with the entire dialogue. So please, don't edit any more of your posts. </DIV>