All these Templar DPS discussions

[KlutchSteele]

<P>Why oh why are Templars upset about dps? We were not designed for DPS at all. We were designed to buff and heal very strongly and thats exactly what we do. If you want to DPS you should play another healer class (ie. fury). Templars heal. Were lucky to even have any dps whatsoever. A true templar should not worry about DPS in any form or fashion. Redirect your energy to constructful critisism on what our class is designed to do. Heal. DPS discussions for us Templars is just silly. </P>

[Stjarna Kvar]

Personally, I don't mind having the least DPS of any class. I would however, like to be able to Solo a ^^^ green heroic like every other class out there. Why do I want this ability? Because its fair? No. Because other classes have it? Sorta. I want this ability because I want to be able to finish solo quests without having to rely on other people to come help the gimpy Templar. I'd like to be able to crawl the upper tunnels of splitpaw in something less than two hours time. Right now, I cannot kill a ^^^ green with blasts before I run out of mana, nor can I keep my self healed long enough to kill a ^^^ green and using my weapon before running out of mana. My concept of a Fury was "DPS Class Priest", don't want one of those as Main Healer. My concept of Templar was "Best Healer in the Game, required for any Epic Battle". This concept has now changed. Now, Furies are able to be main healer, and still retained their DPS status. Templars remained pretty much the same (LU13 dropped the effectiveness of EVERY class by 5 - 10 levels). I would like a small DPS upgrade--maybe a personal damage shield or a non-taunting pet. I would like to see a small upgrade to our "Utility Heals (mark line, involuntary line, redemption line)". Other than that, I think the Templar Class is still one of the most necessary classes in the game. <HR> <A href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/player.vm?characterId=182229101" target=_blank>McJagger McCloud</A> <A href="http://eqlive.station.sony.com/lowsrc/library/sub_deities.jsp" target=_blank>Templar of Ayonae Ro</A> <A href="http://truthseekers.guildportal.com/" target=_blank>Truthseekers</A> <A href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/server.vm?serverId=101" target=_blank>Guk Server</A><p>Message Edited by Stjarna Kvarco on <span class=date_text>10-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:37 AM</span>

[Kendricke]

<P></P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Stjarna Kvarco wrote:<BR>Personally, I don't mind having the least DPS of any class. I would however, like to be able to Solo a ^^^ green heroic like every other class out there. Why do I want this ability? Because its fair? No. Because other classes have it? Sorta. I want this ability because I want to be able to finish solo quests without having to rely on other people to come help the gimpy Templar. I'd like to be able to crawl the upper tunnels of splitpaw in something less than two hours time. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=74898&query.id=0#M74898" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=74898&query.id=0#M74898</A></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV> <HR> I've stated before that some solo players will be able to take out heroic encounters if they have the proper gear, spells, and tactics. It's simply a general rule that, for the average player, it will take a group to defeat most heroic encounters. This is especially true of higher-con heroic fights.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Nowhere have we carved on a stone tablet "Thou shalt not solo heroics." The only proviso we've given is that soloing heroics shouldn't be the most efficient way to earn experience for any class. If you can solo a blue or higher heroic, it should take you a long time and a lot of resources. If you solo green heroics, the XP gained will be minimal. For pure advancement, soloers are better off soloing solo content.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And by the way, we didn't drop the health of ^^^ mobs by anything close to 50%. All we did was make it so the HP of a single ^^^ mob is more in line with that of two ^^ mobs and three ^. In other words, we made the standard heroic encounter configurations more comparable to one another.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II<BR></P> <HR> <P> </P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Caethre]

<P></P>OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KlutchSteele wrote:<BR> <P>Templars heal. Were lucky to even have any dps whatsoever.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yes, we heal, but so do five other classes in game. If all six classes are to heal a group equally well, why is one of them to feel "lucky" to have any DPS at all, whilst others can have high DPS? It is about <STRONG><EM>balance across the priest classes as a whole.</EM></STRONG></P> <P> </P> <P>I'm sorry, I could not disagree with your statement more completely than I do. If a druid subclass can heal <EM>basically</EM> as well as a cleric subclass can (only missing a few proc heals that are almost useless in some circumstances), one might expect those classes to have <EM>basically</EM> the same DPS (and that includes soloing rate).</P> <P> </P> <P>Yes, prior to LU13, you had a point, as at that time, clerics were far better healers than druids, so clerics could not really complain about being far less DPS givers. But the goalposts have been moved.</P> <P> </P> <P>Felishanna.</P>

[Stjarna Kvar]

Thanks for the info Ken. Sounds like they need to up the HP and dps of all Heroics then. I have yet to find a standard equipped character--other than a Templar--who cannot Solo a ^^^ green. My wife's SK can do it. My favorite Dirge can do it. My buddy's guardian or ranger can do it. I can do it with my Trouby. My nuke happy wizard bro can do it. His wife can do it. I can't, and I'm equipped in full Fulginate with at least Adept I quality spells. If most classes should not be able to finish heroics solo, then the heroics are too weak. Oh, who am I kidding, I'll just keep dual boxing. That way SOE can charge me twice as much to play <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Sorry I fell into the Furies got an upgrade, i should too crowd. I should know better. I'm still happy playing the character, and now, I have the ability to have my wife pick back up her fury, I pick back up my bard, and we can all play the classes we originally wanted to play in the beginning. A bit of history: I started out EQ2 wanting to play a bard, after a long stint as the Frooty Tooty bard on EQ1 Test. I played him to lvl 24, with my wife playing a Fury, and my buddy playing a guardian. Pre-LU13, my buddy's guardian couldn't keep the aggro off of my wife--even when all she was doing was healing. Furies were broken. She put hers down and picked up a crusader. I picked up a Templar... assuming that Templars were just plain necessary in our group configuration (if my buddy had been playing a Bruiser, I'd have chosen a Shaman). I found the Templar to be a simply wonderful class, full with interesting complexity. A bit lacking on DPS, but when we added a Dirge to our group, it didn't much matter for the group. Post LU13; howerver, I've had real problems doing anything solo. I did purchase some Imbued Fulginate that helped, and getting the SBS helped even more, but I'm still having to use potions to be able to finish solo instanced quests--like the haunted house. Could be I'm a terrible solo player and need some work. Could be Templar is not my cup of tea. I doubt it. Conclusion: If, as was stated by SOE is ture, then there needs to be an upgrade to heroic difficulty, because the only class I know that can't solo a ^^^ green is the Templar. Anyone else have a similar experience, or do I need to go back to school and learn how to solo?<p>Message Edited by Stjarna Kvarco on <span class=date_text>10-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:02 PM</span>

[Nari]

At what level can't templars with normal gear solo ^^^ heroic greens?  I have a little trouble occasionally.  Since they lowered the hitpoints of those guys a few days ago, it's been more of a sure thing.  Sure, it's a long, tedious, task, but it can be done.  I am *sigh* still 38, but it happens sometimes. Did you mean the rarely kill ^^^ greens or never kill them? <p></p>

[Kendricke]

<P>I hear you, McJagger.  In fact, I remember holding discussions with you on the subject of Templars in giant hunting groups on the shore in the Thundering Steppes when we were both in our 20's.  I recall you brought McFisticuffs with you as well.  :smileywink:</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P></P>

[Stjarna Kvar]

Honestly, I haven't tried in a couple of days. I did one test just after the last update that lowered HP on ^^^. I fought a ^^^ Clay Guardian (lvl 32). I was 42 at the time, in full imbued fulginate, but no SBS yet. I got the mob down to 1/3 hp before I ran out of mana. I may have been able to kill it if I has used my manastone more aggressively, or pulled out some of my damage shield potions. But I was testing straight Templar DPS abilities.I'll do a real test tonight. I'll kill 3 Green ^^^ and time it. Should be enough to get a real indication of where we stand today.

[Stjarna Kvar]

Hey! Didn't reckognize ya! Good to see you're still around. How goes things in the Legion? The McClan has been doing really well lately. Send me a tell in game sometime. I'd love to catch up.

[Fumbles]

There is no question lower leveled Templars were struggling in the DPS department. I stopped playing my Templar for awhile because of this. I logged him in the other day and noticed his smite spell had its damage slightly increased so I took him out to test his solo ability. I found it much more doable and probably more in line with what the higher lvls were considering acceptable at their lvls. Altho still not my main, he has a potential of being played more often now then when the changes first came out. <P></P>

[KlutchSteele]

<P>In reguards to your statement about the goalposts being moved Caethre, They havnt. If you think druids can heal as good as a Templar or even better theres no way I will ever agree with that statement. If your in a single group doing xp just killing single group mobs, sure any healer class can keep up and heal fine however in a raid setting your not going to get a better healer than a Templar for a MT group primarily. </P> <P>You can analyze further if you wish the main difference and thats reactives vs. HoT heals. When you have a raid mob hitting hard and often Hot Heals just dont heal as effective as reactives. Reactives heal when their needed . HoT heals just heal ever so many seconds reguardless if needed or not. And with as many utility heals as Templars have ( far more than any other class ) we can stack an incredible amount of heals in many different fashions on the MT. In an epic setting, a druid as a MT healer just isnt feasable. Youll need a Templar or an Inq. </P> <P>Again, sure any healer class can heal a single group for ginding xp but when it comes down to raiding and epic mobs, Templar is the most efficient and there just isnt any argument to this at all imho. </P> <P>No goal posts have been moved if thats what you want to call it. Templars heal even better than they did before the combat revamp imho with the addtion of Reverence, Divine Arbitration, and the improvement of Focused Benefaction on top of everything else we had. </P> <P>No druid or shaman will ever convince me they can heal better than a Templar or that we are lacking. Id take on any challenge to that statement personally.</P> <P>And to keep me on track with my post about DPS heh My point was as a Templar you heal and thats your primary function. We can solo and even ^^^ green heroics also for those that dont think we can. Skill has some bearing on this of course as with any class. But I dont see any need for any type of DPS upgrade. Its just not what we do. We should be wanting mods to our heal line if anything. </P>

[bigmak20]

<span><blockquote><hr>KlutchSteele wrote:<p>Why oh why are Templars upset about dps? We were not designed for DPS at all. We were designed to buff and heal very strongly and thats exactly what we do. If you want to DPS you should play another healer class (ie. fury). Templars heal. Were lucky to even have any dps whatsoever. A true templar should not worry about DPS in any form or fashion. Redirect your energy to constructful critisism on what our class is designed to do. Heal. DPS discussions for us Templars is just silly. </p><hr></blockquote>This isn't EQ1, get over it. </span><p></p>

[Xerxess]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KlutchSteele wrote:<BR> <P>Why oh why are Templars upset about dps? We were not designed for DPS at all. We were designed to buff and heal very strongly and thats exactly what we do. If you want to DPS you should play another healer class (ie. fury). Templars heal. Were lucky to even have any dps whatsoever. A true templar should not worry about DPS in any form or fashion. Redirect your energy to constructful critisism on what our class is designed to do. Heal. DPS discussions for us Templars is just silly. </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>This isn't EQ1, get over it.<BR><BR></SPAN> <P></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>May not be EQ1 but its still an EQ style game. If EQ2 is the future of EQ1 then our classes are also the future of what we use to be therefore if clerics in the great days of EQ1 healed then...then clerics of EQ2 prolly heal now? <P></P>

[bigmak20]

Of-course we heal -- and reasonably well too.  So do other priests -- who get way more DPS.  Is it worth healing about the same and being way worse at DPS just to be called a "Templar".  To some people I guess so... <p></p>

[Xerxess]

<P>Yay lets get a DPS boost so all healer classes will be the same...*grumbles*</P>

[bigmak20]

<P>**PLEASE NO PERSONAL ATTACKS**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>10-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:54 PM</span>

[Kendricke]

<P>**PLEASE NO PERSONAL ATTACKS**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>10-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:53 PM</span>

[ADW123]

<P></P> <P></P> <P>For the most part healing is very even right now, and because of the way druids heal, they are far better in a raiding situation where aoes are involved and their heals far surpass any cleric/shaman heals. What is not even though is dps. </P> <P> </P> <P>Like you, I don't care about dps, and if they took away every damage spell we had to improve our healing or utility I would be happy to trade it in. Because every priest in the game has to have identical healing though this will never happen and we are forced to argue about dps which is the only thing we can ever hope to get improved, as currently we have the worst in the game.</P> <P> </P> <P>Curaga<BR>52 Templar<BR>Unrest</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by ADW123 on <span class=date_text>10-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:25 PM</span>

[bigmak20]

<P>**PLEASE NO PERSONAL ATTACKS**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>10-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:54 PM</span>

[Xerxess]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Xerxess wrote:<BR> <P>Yay lets get a DPS boost so all healer classes will be the same...*grumbles*</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></SPAN>It is truly sad.  The "This isn't EQ1, Get Over It" response is a carry over from when I was going crazy typing messages to the effect that if we were all to heal equally then all other aspects would need to be balanced -- utility and DPS -- or the classes would be way out of balance.   Why play a templar when you can have more DPS then a Pally and heal almost as good as a Templar?  I was always met by the Kendrickes telling me it wasn't EQ1 to get over it.<BR><BR>It would be so much better if there were subclasses in an archetype instead of all this equality crap.<BR><BR><BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>BUT were still the future of EQ1...its not like this is a totally brand new game with all new stuff. We are the future and as such we hold similarties to what are classes were in EQ1. If we get more DPS then what, another class screaming nerf Templars because we got a DPS boost. We might be able to solo better with better DPS but in groups we are still gonna be the main healers. </P> <P>What we need is better utility to bring to groups.</P> <P><FONT size=1></FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=1>Pesky Furies</FONT></P> <P></P>

[javis]

I would love to see a self only proc buff or a diving damage shield. I am going to buy an imbued cobalt or ironwood weapon meant for fighter classes just for the proc when soloing and forego the wisdom and power stats. It seems like a good trade off to me and hopefully will decrease solo encounter time. I don't envision my class being a signifcant damage dealer in groups, I know my role there and while I do contribute with warring conviction and an appropriate strike on undead or smite to complete a HO or a master smite against appropriate mobs, I know my debuffs are much more effective in making my group more effective killing machines. I have read some good ideas on this subject the past couple of weeks in regards to some buffs that take up precious concentration slots when soloing and I am in favor of that as well. My opinion on the issue at hand is not our ability to solo because I can take down mobs that others wouldn't try but it is the speed at which we kill and anything to improve that and keeping the danger level approriate to the faster killing i.e. more power for more damage, conc slots, etc. then I am in favor of it. I hardly solo as an experience gain, but I do quest, for instance I do at a dozen grifter quests a week and while it is not horrible in terms of my ability to do it, the reduced time in doing so would be a boon to me. Then again, overall I am content and if nothing changed it wouldn't be an end all to me. Izumal 54 Temp on Neriak <p></p>

[Zabumt]

<P>I think us Templar need to take a step back and look at the big picture when we start talking about dps.</P> <P>In the new system, Templars are still one of the best, if not, the best healers in the game.  Especially after we get glory of combat in our late 40s.  When you stack up 2 single-target heals, 1 group heal, 1 single-target reactive, 1 group reactive, fate line, mark line and glory of combat on two meleers in your group, the heal spam is pretty intense.  Now take a group of say 4 meleers and 2 Templars.  That's 4 meleers in the group with glory of combat on.  The group heal procs are insane.</P> <P>But is that needed for an everyday group?  Certainly not.  How much healing is required for an everyday group?  Well, all priest classes can do it in a group where the tank is fighting heroic yellow cons.  Solo.  As a matter of fact, I find myself just kind of kicking back and tossing in a few reactives every now and again.  Or, even throwing in my crappy damage spells to show the group I'm participating and using power heh.</P> <P>That brings me to finding a group with a Templar.  Since any priest can heal as well as any other priest in a group, why would anyone choose a Templar to group with them?  If a priest that can provide more dps can heal just as well in an everyday xp group, why invite a Templar to xp with you?  That's part of where the problem lies.  Could the group take on more challenging content to make up for it?  Sure, but why?  Since killing oranges takes more time and yields less xp over time, why do it?</P> <P>So, now you're a Templar that can't find a group easily but you still want to earn some xp.  You run out and quickly find that soloing even green con down arrow mobs takes exponentially longer than most classes out there.  Can we survive the encounters and beat them?  Yes, but it takes MUCH longer than most classes.  So, soloing is not really an option for decent xp gain.</P> <P>Then we get into the argument of, well, Templars a group class.  Then we turn around and say but every healer out there can do our job just as well in a normal xp group and probably provide more damage over time.  So, why group with us?  And it's just this big circle of argument.  No, I don't expect to dps as well as say, a Fury.  But I expect to have some things that I can bring to a normal xp group that makes us desired.</P> <P>Now this grouping problem is multiplied when a duo or trio of dpsers with no healer can rampage around and kill green/blue heroic content.  For better xp than they would get in a full group with a healer killing yellow con heroics.</P> <P>Us Templars aren't asking for the world.  And in a raid situation, I LOVE my Templar.  But for everyday xping, I can't solo for decent xp and I can't find a group.  So... what's the solution?</P> <P> </P>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote>Xerxess wrote:<p>Yay lets get a DPS boost so all healer classes will be the same...*grumbles*</p><hr></blockquote>So give clerics 20% boost to all healing or triple our dps. As simple as that. 1. option would make us best healers 2. option would make all healers 'the same' Either one would give balance between healing classes. I hate paying 30p to double my soloing capability and still be 50% worse at that than other healers with app4 or a1 skills and treasured gear.</span><p></p>

[Athellias]

<p>I agree with Zabumtik and it feels like we are running in circles. How much DPS can you give a healer type? Give too little and you can't solo at all or very efficiently. Give too much and then you have this uber player that can heal himself/herself and fight well. Why do people ultimately pick the healer class? Like the OP I chose to be a Templar to heal and that was my focus. I like to wear heavy armor and carry a mace. I prefer my healing capabilities be derived from the divine, not nature.However, when you create a system where all healer types are designed to have the same healing capability, what are the intentions? Does it foster a healthier community that is less diverse? I truly believe that all subclasses should be the best at something. All subclasses should have a speciatly that defines them. Does it make sense to say that the Templar subclass specialty is healing? That's about as generic as saying the Guardian subclass specialty is fighting.Ultimately, all Priests should have the capability to keep the same group alive BUT bring something unique to the group that defines why you would invite one subclass over another.There is no question on whether or not a Priest has the capability to solo. As a Templar, I can solo but it's slow and boring. This leads to the underlying argument. If all Priests can heal the same then all Priests should solo the same. It's only fair. Then you have cookie cutter classes just with different spells like Divine Strike vs. Tree Smack but they do the same exact thing.If I solo more slowly and do less damage than a Druid or Shaman, I should heal better. Round and round we go. Bottomline, healing should not be a specialty. Divine buffs and spells like Glory of Combat should be my specialty.I do admit I like the idea of the Templar being the uber healer but that is not good for the community. You can't have other Priest classes sitting on the sidelines because they can't keep the same group alive unless they are designed from the beginning to be secondary healers that bring additinal damage or utilities like evac or group invis.</p><p>Edit: removed old signature</p>

[Stjarna Kvar]

<blockquote><hr>Athellias wrote:<p></p><font size="2">Bottomline, healing should not be a specialty. Divine buffs and spells like Glory of Combat should be my specialty.I do admit I like the idea of the Templar being the uber healer but that is not good for the community. You can't have other Priest classes sitting on the sidelines because they can't keep the same group alive unless they are designed from the beginning to be secondary healers that bring additinal damage or utilities like evac or group invis.Athelias50 Dwarf TemplarMistmoore</font><hr></blockquote>Bravo! Great Analysis.

[Caethre]

<P></P> <P></P>OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KlutchSteele wrote:<BR> <P>In reguards to your statement about the goalposts being moved Caethre, They havnt. If you think druids can heal as good as a Templar or even better theres no way I will ever agree with that statement. If your in a single group doing xp just killing single group mobs, sure any healer class can keep up and heal fine however in a raid setting your not going to get a better healer than a Templar for a MT group primarily.</P> <P>...</P> <P>Again, sure any healer class can heal a single group for ginding xp but when it comes down to raiding and epic mobs, Templar is the most efficient and there just isnt any argument to this at all imho.</P> <P></P> <HR> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Raiding. That is all you are talking about. You do realize that the overwhelming majority of players are not and will never be or want to be in raid guilds, and will spend very little of their time raiding? I have played EQ2 for almost a year, and been on precisely one raid (and that was just 8 people). I suspect I will do raids less than 5% of my time ever (based on 5 years in EQ1, where I barely ever raided either). This is a RP game you know, many of us play for other reasons. And have you have done a level check on your server, whatever it is, and see how many people there are at low level? Many people never even reach typical raiding levels (because they do not want to). Balance should be relevant at all levels , and to all playstyles, just because we are not in raiding guilds does not mean what we love should be ignored, and our class left imbalanced in the domain in which we play.</P> <P> </P> <P>I am talking about groups grinding XP.  I am talking about trios and duos. I am talking about soloing. I couldn't give a XXXXX about raiding (no disrespect to raiders, it is just not the topic of discussion here).</P> <P> </P> <P>And in the areas I am talking about, which is the entire game for many of us, you can now post LU15 replace a Templar in a group with a Fury (or other healer, but the effect is not as great), and get all the healing you need to keep the group alive AND MORE that the Templar cannot offer. Your post admits this, but just concentrates on a tiny part of the game.</P> <P> </P> <P>For those of us who *only* solo, duo, trio and group, for 90%+ of our time (yes, thats most players, the thousands of usin small guilds and at all levels), LU13 has meant that no longer is there a tradeoff - Templar for better heals and worse nukes, Fury for better nukes and lesser heals (cant heal a group in some circumstances) - now its just - any priest for the healing, but hey guys, get a Fury if you can ALWAYS, because you will do far more damage.</P> <P> </P> <P>Hehe, last night my Fury made 23 and got her new nuke. She joined a group, and within 20 minutes, the other group members were commenting on how "overpowered" I was. This is going to get through to SoE, nothing is more certain, it is only a matter of time. I only hope they don't nerf some healers, but instead redress the balance by boosting the lower ones (clue: that's the cleric classes).</P> <P> </P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>I'll set ANYONE this challenge</FONT>. Level a druid to just 14. Take the master2 nuke option. Try soloing anything. Try duoing with any other class. Try healing a full group in an XP setting, where you are also tossing in nukes as damage. And then come back and tell me your Cleric is worth a spot in that group compared to a Druid. And if you have the time, try reaching 23 Fury and doing the same. Forget raiding for a monent, just do it. I HAVE. If you don't come back with a very clear idea of what I'm saying, you are never going to see it.</STRONG></P> <P> </P> <P>The point elsewhere tho, about needing address all healing classes, not look only at Fury vs Templar, is absolutely true.</P> <P> </P> <P>Felishanna.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Caethre on <span class=date_text>10-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:10 PM</span>

[Nari]

A big attraction for the templar was survivabilty.  It is pretty hard for something to kill me.  It always has been.  Now that the penalties of death in solo and group play are significantly less, it isn't as big of a deal.  I am not sure that the answer is to punish other classes, though. <p></p>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <P></P> <P></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>I'll set ANYONE this challenge</FONT>. Level a druid to just 14. Take the master2 nuke option. Try soloing anything. Try duoing with any other class. Try healing a full group in an XP setting, where you are also tossing in nukes as damage. And then come back and tell me your Cleric is worth a spot in that group compared to a Druid. And if you have the time, try reaching 23 Fury and doing the same. Forget raiding for a monent, just do it. I HAVE. If you don't come back with a very clear idea of what I'm saying, you are never going to see it.</STRONG></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>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).  </P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P> <P></P>

[Xaax]

<P></P> <P></P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <P></P> <P></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>I'll set ANYONE this challenge</FONT>. Level a druid to just 14. Take the master2 nuke option. Try soloing anything. Try duoing with any other class. Try healing a full group in an XP setting, where you are also tossing in nukes as damage. And then come back and tell me your Cleric is worth a spot in that group compared to a Druid. And if you have the time, try reaching 23 Fury and doing the same. Forget raiding for a monent, just do it. I HAVE. If you don't come back with a very clear idea of what I'm saying, you are never going to see it.</STRONG></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>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). </P> <P><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3><FONT color=#66ff66>Does t</FONT><FONT color=#66ff66>hat mean that you are going to do that and post the numbers and experience as Caethre did with her post?</FONT></FONT></P> <P></P><p>Message Edited by Xaax on <span class=date_text>10-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:39 AM</span>

[Asp728]

<P></P> <P>I'm starting to think this is really a veiled "nerf druids" post (or just nerf furies). </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Edit - oops.  I posted this in the wrong thread.  Disregard <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>I'm a n00b</P> <P></P><p>Message Edited by Asp728 on <span class=date_text>10-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:10 AM</span>

[Jida]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Asp728 wrote:<BR>I'm starting to think this is really a veiled "nerf druids" post (or just nerf furies). <P></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Im seeing it different. More like looking for Equality more than looking for a Nerf.</P> <P>I should have picked Master 2 nukes.. BAH... still have a /respec.. might use that in the future.</P> <P> </P> <P>Elder</P> <P></P>

[Goozman]

<P></P> <P>How does this idea that priests all heal the same keep coming up? They do not! Templars are the best healers for crying out loud. The only heals that are balanced are the general heals that all priests get. </P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=12964&page=2" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=12964&page=2</A></P> <P>Looks at my long colorful post here. I'm only covering  5 levels there, and clearly Templars have more heals and more damage prevention spells. So what... the hell... are you talking about.</P>

[Kendricke]

<P></P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Xaax wrote: <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3><FONT color=#66ff66>Does t</FONT><FONT color=#66ff66>hat mean that you are going to do that and post the numbers and experience as Caethre did with her post?</FONT></FONT><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Absolutely.  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.    </P> <P> </P> <P>A quick check today in Guildchat though did confirm that INT will affect how much damage a spell even displays for.  A guildmate with an INT of just 31 unbuffed saw a spell scroll for Radiant Strike Adept III only showing for just around 57-70 damage.  Meanwhile, a guildmate with fully buffed 264 INT saw it at around 73-90 (before undead bonus).  I'd be curious to know what Caethre's Fury's base INT is with/without INT buffs, and what the baseline damage is showing on a Master II Chill (which does double damage to elemental based targets).  </P> <P> </P> <P>Now, I'll grant you that 90 damage may not seem like much, but this was only an Adept III - not a Master II, and it's only the baseline shown.  Against undead, and assuming only a 75 damage spell - you're looking at 150 on average before other spells are factored in, such as the cleric level 18 Mark of Pawns, which lowers divine resistance.  </P> <P> </P> <P>I'll also be looking over healing statistics as well, since the claim was made that both classes are healing equally.  I'm well aware that Furies have the highest DPS of any priest class.  The developers have stated as much.  Therefore, I don't want to get too bogged down in proving what is already documented fact without taking other factors into consideration - such as total group DPS (by way of different debuffs each class has access to).  As an example, level 10 clerics can lower mitigation on targets using Rebuke, whereas level 10 druids comparable spell is Nettleshield, a low level damage shield that can be placed on one member of the group.  I'd venture a guess that in a melee heavy group, the cleric's rebuke will raise group DPS more than the druid's damage shield.  At level 18, when the cleric is lowering divine resistances with Mark of Pawns (as well as proc heals groupwide), the druid gets a buff which raises agility and wisdom of the group.  </P> <P> </P> <P>So yes, directly, I have no doubt that Furies do more direct damage.  However, one can't simply overlook Cleric's indirect DPS contributions in a group setting.  Hopefully we'll see some of this in the tests.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P> <P></P><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>10-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:19 AM</span>

[Donte]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KlutchSteele wrote:<BR> <P>Why oh why are Templars upset about dps? We were not designed for DPS at all. We were designed to buff and heal very strongly and thats exactly what we do. If you want to DPS you should play another healer class (ie. fury). Templars heal. Were lucky to even have any dps whatsoever. A true templar should not worry about DPS in any form or fashion. Redirect your energy to constructful critisism on what our class is designed to do. Heal. DPS discussions for us Templars is just silly. </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Wow! ok, you are right.  let me throw away my 50 templar and reroll a monk.  1-50 should only take another few months.......</P> <P> </P> <P>sheesh, you are are quick one.</P>

[kenji]

<P>i am sure most templar here sign a templar not because of DPS, but for superior healing / cures (better than others, just like better tanking will choose Guardian, bigger nuke with warlock/wiz) however, in LU13, SoE Patched ALL healers to be able to heal/keep the same group alive AND nerfed our cures ....  Fine...look at our utilities .. not so uber....look at our dps... woot u better dont look at others... what's the point being a templar? just because the Plate look better?</P> <P>what does we lost in revamp : 1000 ac buff overall, 2 group cures, halved the Group RH,  lowered RH... make both weaker from total charges change. (9/5 instead 8+1/4+1)</P> <P>what does we gained in revamp : same % as other priest dd improvement (40 of 400 and 160 of 1600...) a mez that doesnt work on epic, a stun doesnt work on epic. and ppls talking abt raid we are improved...great. so great.</P> <P>after Revamp, the Mobs DPS/HP/total time required lowered.. aka the needs of healing less than before, aka Templar has same abilities to keep the group alive as others, but Cannot do as much as others on DPS.</P> <P>why can templar still able to find group as easy as other priests : there is Not much Furies , Wardens population dropped since the nerfs, Shaman even less than druids on population... thats why we can find group easily. i am sure templar post 50 doesnt have a problem to find group (since 99% templar guilded and thus they can find grp easily) but up-coming templars from 20-50 will be a pain to get over a fury / shaman due to the lack of utilities and dps...with same heal-ability</P>

[javis]

Here is my opinion: Other healing classes were brought more in line with templars on their healing capability, I am very happy for them, they needed the boost because they are a healing class and should be able to support a group. We still are the superior healing class in handling spike damage, utilities, biggest direct heals, etc. Our DPS sucks and always has, nothing has changed there. The addition of int causing more damage has increased the gap of dps between the classes because of buffs, etc. I as a templar am a wis [Removed for Content], I try to increase my wis at every slot so I have more power to heal more, my main goal in a group. This also contributes to that gap. I have <b>never</b> seen anyone take any healing class for their dps, and my opinion is that furies may be more welcomed when a group is lower on  dps, but they are recruited for healing because... um.. well... they are a healer and they will mainly serve that role. This is all based on what I see from day to day. My only point of contention is our solo ability. The lack of any high damage higher power spells or damage shield or proc makes it slower than other healing classes and while I don't solo for exp, questing for faction or tokens, etc. is a regular event for me. While it is nice to grab numbers for our class and proving that it indeed isn't taking 5 minutes is one thing, but the data we really need is how effective are the other healing classes in the same scenario, I would throw down some gold that we are lacking there. Bottom line, there is a bit of class envy and with the new expansion it seems the templars were nerfed a bit in favor of balance but yet it was stopped at strictly healing. I am fairly certain no other classes would be outraged if we were given a proc or damage shield. One other thing to note, I am a L54 templar and this is from my perspective. I have no idea how the changes to the lower level templars are affecting them in actually getting groups, etc. Cheers, Izumal <div></div>

[Kharzho]

<P>Something I posted on the Fury forums....</P> <P> </P><FONT face=Helv size=2> <P>People always compare themselves to what they deem to be the most powerful class. Often this focus on a single classes power leads to 'flavor of the months', resentment and complaints. The issue with this game and with human nature in general, is people almost always want to be "the best".</P> <P>The catch is the best in game terms (and often in real life) is based on perceptions rather than truth. Look at how media hype can focus the country's attention on a single and often insignificant issue. These message boards act as the same -- it sparks the myth (or truth) of relative power increases / decreases which then causes an emotional reaction in people who have invested days / weeks / months / years into the character.</P> <P>The absolute difference of class comparison almost seems moot, but rather its the relative amount. Two months ago templars were the flavor of the month. I would agree, as a level 53 templar, they were too power relative both in absolute terms and in relative terms. I could easily watch TV and heal a double ^^^ encounter group by just casting my reactive spells ... waiting for them to refresh and then casting again.</P> <P>SOE rightfully 'nerfed' templars and increased the power of the other priests (I will just focus this discussion on priests as I don't know the nuances of the other classes). In doing templar's relative power was significantly reduced and people began to complain. Now, in some ways it is correct for them to complain - their relative power versus the other priests was dramatically increased. All people will complain when their relative (perceived or real) is decreased.</P> <P>However, I think the change was good for the overall game balance and put the 'fun' factor back into the game for many people. I actually love to log on and play my templar now, as it is hard to keep people healed. Before it was too much like WoW -- easy and fast. Now it is hard and difficult -- and hence my personal enjoyment has gone up. With that said, I assume SOE will see a shift of many people from templars to the newest 'flavor of the month' and cancelling of accounts.</P> <P>So why are fury's getting all of the attention after being a broken class since release? Basically you have become the newly perceived uber class. Do you heal better than templars? To be honest I have no idea, nor do I really care as I can heal my groups fine. Occasionally people will die when I wait for one of my heals to refresh and I scream at my monitor -- but each class has the same issue occasionally. Do they heal as well as templars? Again, I can't provide any detailed analysis with parses to come up with a real analysis. However, I do know that my guildies are able to successfully single heal groups now ... so I would say they are in the ball park of templar healing. If there is some difference, it is measured in 10% increments. I.e. class X heals 90% as well as class Y.</P> <P>Buffs. I love my templar buffs and acknowledge they are powerful and useful. I think classes often overlook the power of buffs in groups and templars have 'em in spades. Do some classes buff X equal / exceed / etc templars? I think we are probably more balance in the buffs, on aggregate, than the other priests (relative power).</P> <P>Utility. Heh -- none. But I think our lack of utility is made up for in buffs so no real complaints. Would I like invis / evac / sow? Heck yeah - but it would be gravy and nothing I would specifically ask for.</P> <P>DPS. This seems to be the main focus why people have classified furys as the new 'uber' priest. You guys are top dog in this department with the style of fighting that happens most in this game. Most fights are quick, hence burst damage is useful more often than sustained damage. Your burst dps is quite nice.</P> <P>The issue is now all the other priest classes are now looking solely at your dps and want to move closer in the relative scale to your class. The argument is if class X heals 90% well as class Y. Then to balance it out class X should provide 10% more dps / utility / buffs to balance the two. I believe the complaint is the perception that fury dps is not measured by small relative base (10%), but in multiples (1x difference, 2x, etc).</P> <P>So for the past 12 months, the classes said 'we want to heal on par with templars', now they are now saying 'we want to be able to nuke like furys'. Its simply the perception that your heals are good enough to be relatively close to all the healing classes (as was originally intended) and now your dps is significantly more than the other classes.</P> <P>Is this perception correct? That is a big issue people are trying to prove / disprove. I would *think* fury dps is probably 1x in a normal fight (fast) due to big nukes and long recasts. My nuke does about 200 damage <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I would happily spend 5x more mana for 3x more damage.</P> <P>I don't think any rational people are calling for a nerfing of furys. I would be angry if they did, as I love having fully functioning classes in my guild, and nerfing of any of those would make guild raids that much harder. I think people are simply asking for a relative damage increase to be in the neighborhood of fury dps. I.e. if templar healing is 20% more powerful than furies (please dont focus on percents here, this is just an example), I would be happy if I could nuke at 70% of a fury, as I believe my buffs are worth 10% and utility isn't important to me.</P> <P>Conclusion: Most rational people aren't calling for the nerfing of your class, just a shift to bring their DPS within a relative range of yours. I think the % relative range should be based upon weeks / months of parsing to determine a proper relative value for other priests.</P> <P>Apologies for the ramble - its been a long week.</P> <P>Kharzhoul </P> <P>53st level templar</P> <P>Deaths Door</P> <P>Grobb </P></FONT>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Goozman wrote: <p>How does this idea that priests all heal the same keep coming up? They do not! Templars are the best healers for crying out loud. The only heals that are balanced are the general heals that all priests get. </p> <p><a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=12964&page=2" target="_blank">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=12964&page=2</a></p> <p>Looks at my long colorful post here. I'm only covering  5 levels there, and clearly Templars have more heals and more damage prevention spells. So what... the hell... are you talking about.</p><hr></blockquote></span>All need to look at Goozman's post here: http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=11&message.id=4570  You will see that Templar "utility" has been understated.  The problem is how people define utility, not that Templar spells suck.  Most Templars seem to dismiss anything with "healing" as "healing" and not utility.  Then they take the corresponding alternative spellline from another class and wonder why they didn't get that spell.  The problem with this view is that since the spell slots that give "utility" to the Fury give "healing" or "damage prevention" to the Templar it is for some reason automatically assumed that the Fury line is better, but how is that? Personally, looking at that list thru my Defiler's eyes, Templars have it pretty good.  In my opinion, outside of basic healing, which is balanced, EVERYTHING is "utility."  Just because a Templar prevents more damage and has healing proccing buffs, etc. does not mean they have less "utility."  If you look at it narrowly like that then you must concede Templars already DO heal better. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>10-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:20 AM</span>

[bigmak20]

<SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Goozman wrote:<BR> <P>How does this idea that priests all heal the same keep coming up? They do not! Templars are the best healers for crying out loud. The only heals that are balanced are the general heals that all priests get. </P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=12964&page=2" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=12964&page=2</A></P> <P>Looks at my long colorful post here. I'm only covering  5 levels there, and clearly Templars have more heals and more damage prevention spells. So what... the hell... are you talking about.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN>All need to look at Goozman's post here:<BR><BR>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=11&message.id=4570<BR><BR> You will see that Templar "utility" has been understated.<BR><BR>The problem is how people define utility, not that Templar spells suck.  Most Templars seem to dismiss anything with "healing" as "healing" and not utility.  Then they take the corresponding alternative spellline from another class and wonder why they didn't get that spell.<BR><BR>Personally, looking at that list thru my Defiler's eyes, Templars have it pretty good.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN><BR>Most Templar think our utility is close to balanced but out if whack when compared to a class that has awesome utility and considerably more DPS then we do while having EQUAL HEALING (remember -- you just said that few extra percent of healing we get is our UTILITY). <BR><BR>**REMOVED PERSONAL ATTACKS**<p>Message Edited by Raijinnstein's Monster on <span class=date_text>10-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:18 AM</span>

[Sokolov]

<span><span><blockquote><hr>bigmak2010 wrote:<div></div><span></span> I'll repeat myself because the denser types are already writing "Templar's heal some better" replies.  If our UTILITY is those few extra spells we get to give us a few more percent healing (UTILITY) then why is the DPS so out of balance when there is otherwise equal healing? <hr></blockquote>Because that's balance... Templar Basic Healing = Other Basic Healing Templar Utility Healing = Other Utility Whatevers - DPS, Invis, etc. What?  You want same DPS, same Utility, but better healing?  Screw you =P </span></span><span></span> <div></div>

[bigmak20]

ROFL You posted links illustrating we get some UTILITY healing.  If that UTILITY healing (we heal equally otherwise) is our UTILITY why is our DPS so out of balance? I agree with you and you say "screw you".... <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span></span>All need to look at Goozman's post here: http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=11&message.id=4570  You will see that Templar "utility" has been understated.  The problem is how people define utility, not that Templar spells suck.  Most Templars seem to dismiss anything with "healing" as "healing" and not utility.  Then they take the corresponding alternative spellline from another class and wonder why they didn't get that spell.  The problem with this view is that since the spell slots that give "utility" to the Fury give "healing" or "damage prevention" to the Templar it is for some reason automatically assumed that the Fury line is better, but how is that? Personally, looking at that list thru my Defiler's eyes, Templars have it pretty good.  In my opinion, outside of basic healing, which is balanced, EVERYTHING is "utility."  Just because a Templar prevents more damage and has healing proccing buffs, etc. does not mean they have less "utility."  If you look at it narrowly like that then you must concede Templars already DO heal better. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">10-31-2005</span> <span class="time_text">07:20 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Ok, lets follow this line of though. Healing is balanced among healers. Utility is balanced since we get healing and furies for example get damage prevention. The WHY are our dps so unbalanced? Why does a fury so much more damage than a templar? If healing and utility are balanced, then should our dps spells be balanced too. And they are not.</span><div></div>

[Dalchar]

I think the "why" is rather easily found: a matter of compounding effects... For furies, when 90% of what you have beefs up dps, (and it does, about everything other than SOW and Group Invis), your dps is bound to go up, and while solo, those augmentations that do significantly better on someone else in a group, can at least help yourself.  Plus the ability to buff INT is no joke... dropping about 170 INT (was about 250ish to 90ish)off buffs made my minimum nuke go down by about 150 and max go down by nearly 300.  I think that INT buffs affect things on a percent basis when I looked at that.  Add that to the traditional higher dps/more armor restrictions vs lower dps/heavy armor options, and then you have what we have. Templar's abilities to prevent and additionally heal damage in one way or another (mez, stun, heal procs, ac procs, etc) while allowing them shine in groups like no other, but they no real parseable effect that you will likely notice until much later levels if you played another priest up to high levels... (ie keeping one mob of two ++'s pacified and stunned while group mows down the other, you reduced the incoming dps onto your tank by 50%).  Although that was fabulous, while solo, makes for a miserable time trying to get much of anything done as your dps suffers from all the non-damage utilities and fringes. <div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:I think the "why" is rather easily found: a matter of compounding effects... For furies, when 90% of what you have beefs up dps, (and it does, about everything other than SOW and Group Invis), your dps is bound to go up, and while solo, those augmentations that do significantly better on someone else in a group, can at least help yourself.  Plus the ability to buff INT is no joke... dropping about 170 INT (was about 250ish to 90ish)off buffs made my minimum nuke go down by about 150 and max go down by nearly 300.  I think that INT buffs affect things on a percent basis when I looked at that.  Add that to the traditional higher dps/more armor restrictions vs lower dps/heavy armor options, and then you have what we have. Templar's abilities to prevent and additionally heal damage in one way or another (mez, stun, heal procs, ac procs, etc) while allowing them shine in groups like no other, but they no real parseable effect that you will likely notice until much later levels if you played another priest up to high levels... (ie keeping one mob of two ++'s pacified and stunned while group mows down the other, you reduced the incoming dps onto your tank by 50%).  Although that was fabulous, while solo, makes for a miserable time trying to get much of anything done as your dps suffers from all the non-damage utilities and fringes. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Try again. Just by looking at the raw dps the fury damaging spells do. Like someone said, high 30's fury group damage spell does almost triple damage compared to low 50's templars group damage spell. Same trend is with single target nukes. Also when I got my int from 70 to 170 as a templar, I noticed about 25% increase in the damage my spells do. Now at that  250 you mentioned, that would mean about 40% damage potential. And you just mentioned that the 40% is 300 points for a fury. For me it is 150. So it is definately not just the intelligence difference. Int explains half of the damage difference, the rest that remains is due to pure damage capability of any given ability. In addition, templars have no longer any ac procs. The heal procs also ase so minimal that they are less useful than imbued armor. Mez we dont even have, we only have the aggro range reducer which is only useful when gathering. Stun is also useless as it has too long cast time compared to duration. Also why would I want to mez one of the 2^^'s? After all they dont hit that hard and my healing requires mt to get hit. So if I pacify one, I also loe 50% of my healing ability. Also the pacify breaks when the target takes any damage and as far as I have seen, aa's are always used against those by any class that have them. So my dps suffers because I have craploads of totally useless utility. And in fact, every class have utility and they still do dps. But not templars, we have equal healing power compared to other healers, we have equal number of utility spells (nuff said about their usefulness) but we have low dps compared to other healing classes who can heal also and have the same number of utility. So templar dps is low just because of the class name. Nothing more. It is time for SoE to delete clerics from class listings and give us our /reclass. No one with a bit of sence and knowledge would start a cleric in current situation. Exept if they hope situation will improve. And if you disagree, please tell me why to roll a templar. Healing? Sure, we can heal, but so can any other pries subclass. Utility? Which one precisely? DPS? Give me a break. Heavy armor? One of the reasons why we get interrupted more often than other classes. You see it is not any single thing alone that makes templars suck. It is all that crap piled together. </span><div></div>

[quetzaqotl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR>I think the "why" is rather easily found: a matter of compounding effects... <BR><BR>For furies, when 90% of what you have beefs up dps, (and it does, about everything other than SOW and Group Invis), your dps is bound to go up, and while solo, those augmentations that do significantly better on someone else in a group, can at least help yourself.  Plus the ability to buff INT is no joke... dropping about 170 INT (was about 250ish to 90ish)off buffs made my minimum nuke go down by about 150 and max go down by nearly 300.  I think that INT buffs affect things on a percent basis when I looked at that.  Add that to the traditional higher dps/more armor restrictions vs lower dps/heavy armor options, and then you have what we have.<BR><BR>Templar's abilities to prevent and additionally heal damage in one way or another (mez, stun, heal procs, ac procs, etc) while allowing them shine in groups like no other, but they no real parseable effect that you will likely notice until much later levels if you played another priest up to high levels... (ie keeping one mob of two ++'s pacified and stunned while group mows down the other, you reduced the incoming dps onto your tank by 50%).  Although that was fabulous, while solo, makes for a miserable time trying to get much of anything done as your dps suffers from all the non-damage utilities and fringes.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Try again. Just by looking at the raw dps the fury damaging spells do. Like someone said, high 30's fury group damage spell does almost triple damage compared to low 50's templars group damage spell. Same trend is with single target nukes. <BR><BR>Also when I got my int from 70 to 170 as a templar, I noticed about 25% increase in the damage my spells do. Now at that  250 you mentioned, that would mean about 40% damage potential. And you just mentioned that the 40% is 300 points for a fury. For me it is 150. So it is definately not just the intelligence difference. Int explains half of the damage difference, the rest that remains is due to pure damage capability of any given ability. <BR><BR>In addition, templars have no longer any ac procs. The heal procs also ase so minimal that they are less useful than imbued armor. Mez we dont even have, we only have the aggro range reducer which is only useful when gathering. Stun is also useless as it has too long cast time compared to duration. Also why would I want to mez one of the 2^^'s? After all they dont hit that hard and my healing requires mt to get hit. So if I pacify one, I also loe 50% of my healing ability. Also the pacify breaks when the target takes any damage and as far as I have seen, aa's are always used against those by any class that have them.<BR><BR>So my dps suffers because I have craploads of totally useless utility. And in fact, every class have utility and they still do dps. But not templars, we have equal healing power compared to other healers, we have equal number of utility spells (nuff said about their usefulness) but we have low dps compared to other healing classes who can heal also and have the same number of utility.<BR><BR>So templar dps is low just because of the class name. Nothing more. It is time for SoE to delete clerics from class listings and give us our /reclass. No one with a bit of sence and knowledge would start a cleric in current situation. Exept if they hope situation will improve.<BR><BR>And if you disagree, please tell me why to roll a templar. Healing? Sure, we can heal, but so can any other pries subclass. <STRONG>Utility? Which one precisely?</STRONG> DPS? Give me a break. Heavy armor? One of the reasons why we get interrupted more often than other classes.<BR><BR>You see it is not any single thing alone that makes templars suck. It is all that crap piled together. <BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>hmm complete incombat rez, mez, odyssey? whats that? all crap?</P> <P>You are staring blindly on dps and foget about the rest.<BR> </P> <p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:40 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

<P>**REMOVE FLAME BAIT**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinnstein's Monster on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:35 AM</span>

[quetzaqotl]

<P>Hahaha that is rich I picked my fury nov 11th 2004 broken as it was cause I liked the vibe of the fury the furies of nature I didnt pick my class for invis or sow too and well i always have this feeling clerics in the rpgs i played are boring I always go for druids/whizzies in rpgs thats my play style.</P> <P>Ooh pallies get the same spell, k cool, try again? why you get that spell I dont so thats what you have over furies in that dept. so its as valid as it is )ooh and always group with a pally for the complete rez come one now) you get some kind of mez im sure or pacify or whatever and odyssey is FAR from useless just cause you dont use it doesnt make it useless.</P> <P>And how I hate it that you keep insisting that im trolling or flaming or whatever Im just posting my thoughts about someones post I dont have any hidden agendas or whatever if you talk about furies or compare templars with furies is it so strange that some furies or  a fury comes along and post their thought or maybe the actual info?</P> <P>I know you you are the guy who used to click the 1 star button everytime you didnt agree with someone.</P>

[Timaarit]

Exactly. As it is, there is no reason to pick a templar, I am glad you agree. If that is 'working as intended', well, I guess I might want my money back. <div></div>

[quetzaqotl]

oh man youre so full of it you mr ARE a troll. <DIV>And youre going on ignore.</DIV><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:21 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

I agree, they should make it so that the ignore option ignores forum posts also. As for the ignore you 'threathened' me with, I have never had any intentions on sending pm's to you anyway. <div></div>

[Big Da]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE>quetzaqotl wrote: <P>hmm complete incombat rez, mez, odyssey? whats that? all crap?</P> <P>You are staring blindly on dps and foget about the rest.<BR> </P> <P>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <SPAN class=date_text>11-01-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>04:40 AM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Try again, we have no mez. Paladins have the exact same rez as we do exept their recast time is 60 seconds while ours is 120 seconds and they get it earliers (we get it at lvl 50). Guess who rezzes in my groups... I haven't used odyssey since DoF was released. So useless.<BR><BR>Tell me why didn't you pick a templar if you think odyssy is such a good utility? Or complete rez? Why did you pick a fury if templar utility is so uber? Your choice and trolling just makes it more certain that templars are useless compared to furies.<BR><BR>Then again, you are afraid the our complaining does the same to you that druids complaiind did to us.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Not exactly true one of out main attacks ends in a 2 sec (can’t remember but its not very long) mez</P> <P>We get soothe which is quite useful and a mez like spell</P> <P>There are the Sign lines which prevent attacks much like a mez.</P>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Big Dave wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:<span> <blockquote>quetzaqotl wrote: <p>hmm complete incombat rez, mez, odyssey? whats that? all crap?</p> <p>You are staring blindly on dps and foget about the rest. </p> <div></div> <p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class="date_text">11-01-2005</span><span class="time_text">04:40 AM</span></p> <hr> </blockquote>Try again, we have no mez. Paladins have the exact same rez as we do exept their recast time is 60 seconds while ours is 120 seconds and they get it earliers (we get it at lvl 50). Guess who rezzes in my groups... I haven't used odyssey since DoF was released. So useless.Tell me why didn't you pick a templar if you think odyssy is such a good utility? Or complete rez? Why did you pick a fury if templar utility is so uber? Your choice and trolling just makes it more certain that templars are useless compared to furies.Then again, you are afraid the our complaining does the same to you that druids complaiind did to us.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Not exactly true one of out main attacks ends in a 2 sec (can’t remember but its not very long) mez</p> <p>We get soothe which is quite useful and a mez like spell</p> <p>There are the Sign lines which prevent attacks much like a mez.</p><hr></blockquote>The problem here isn't that Templars have no utility, it's that for some reason the Templars that post here seem to think that it isn't good enough. And I can understand that, most people like DPS.  It makes us feel good to kill virtual creatures for some reason.  But it doesn't make the Templar spell lines less useful just because it doesn't show up on a parse.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote>Big Dave wrote: <p>Not exactly true one of out main attacks ends in a 2 sec (can’t remember but its not very long) mez</p> <p>We get soothe which is quite useful and a mez like spell</p> <p>There are the Sign lines which prevent attacks much like a mez.</p><hr></blockquote>Yes, but as it is, those are only useful while soloing and they dont add to our dps. Why they are useless in groups? From my experience jsut because they break with damage. The groups I have been have always have one or more with aa's. Also I generally group with conjurer and/or warlock whose 'pacify' does not break with damage. </span><span>Also the durations are so short that mez is a wrong term, especially since they will follow if mt tries to get out of aa range to use one.</span><span> So they are not the kind of utility that benefit the group, not even soothe as soothed target will still turn aggro if his nearby friends are aggroed. Tried this by soothing a ^^^ and aggroing a nearby another ^^^. Both came for the group. These spells might add to templar survivability though. But then again, I rarely have problems with that even without using those spells, my only problem is the time it takes to kill something and the fact that every other healer brings more useful skills and more dps to the group than my templar. </span><div></div>

[Caethre]

<P>**REMOVED FLAME BAIT**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinnstein's Monster on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:27 AM</span>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote>Big Dave wrote: <p>Not exactly true one of out main attacks ends in a 2 sec (can’t remember but its not very long) mez</p> <p>We get soothe which is quite useful and a mez like spell</p> <p>There are the Sign lines which prevent attacks much like a mez.</p><hr></blockquote>Yes, but as it is, those are only useful while soloing and they dont add to our dps. Why they are useless in groups? From my experience jsut because they break with damage. The groups I have been have always have one or more with aa's. Also I generally group with conjurer and/or warlock whose 'pacify' does not break with damage. </span><span>Also the durations are so short that mez is a wrong term, especially since they will follow if mt tries to get out of aa range to use one.</span><span> So they are not the kind of utility that benefit the group, not even soothe as soothed target will still turn aggro if his nearby friends are aggroed. Tried this by soothing a ^^^ and aggroing a nearby another ^^^. Both came for the group. These spells might add to templar survivability though. But then again, I rarely have problems with that even without using those spells, my only problem is the time it takes to kill something and the fact that every other healer brings more useful skills and more dps to the group than my templar. </span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I use my Defiler's fear line all the time, it is INVALUABLE to my ability to deal with adds.  It breaks with damage, yes, but still very powerful.  As for who you group with, well, you play to your strengths.  I mean, I am sure all classes are stronger or weaker with certain classes or against certain mobs, so that's just part of the game.  </span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR>OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>The problem here isn't that Templars have no utility, it's that for some reason the Templars that post here seem to think that it isn't good enough.<BR><BR>And I can understand that, most people like DPS.  It makes us feel good to kill virtual creatures for some reason.  But it doesn't make the Templar spell lines less useful just because it doesn't show up on a parse.<BR></SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Tell that to all the Templars sitting LFG whilst groups take Furies.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tell that to all the Templars shelving their characters and re-rolling as Furies so they can get groups and actually feel they are no longer leeches on the groups they do get.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And as for telling that to Templars like me, that are now playing a Fury and know FOR A FACT just how much more contribution they can make to small groups and how much faster they can solo.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It is not just me that is playing both Templar and Fury and can see every single day the extra power the Fury class has now that it can to all intents and purposes fulfil the solo healer role in any group AND use excess power to nuke at 3-4 times the power.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Really, people like you need to stop posting misinformation. The Templar class right now is crippled in solo/small group settings, compared to other priests and especially compared to Furies. Anyone saying anything else is not looking at the facts, or at the player dynamics OUTSIDE the large guilds, and has their head in the sands. Not to mention, they are ignoring the massive volumn of posts and posters all reporting the same thing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But sure, its mass hysteria, from all classes, people should be giving those LFG Templars groups? Well .. I wouldn't, as things are now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Felishanna / Annaelisa</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I have not noticed any disportionate Templar LFG activity on my server.<BR><BR>*I* still invite Templars.  But maybe it's because I am not one-track minded.  When on my zerker, the advantage of having a Templar, I find, is an increased ability for me to switch to offensive stance earlier in a fight, which increases both aggro and dps on my part.  Doing that with a druid is generally significantly more risky.<BR><BR></SPAN><SPAN>If you have so much time to do DPS as a Fury... why are you still fighting those mobs?  Go after something harder.  </SPAN><SPAN>As the one taking the damage, I notice as well as the healer just how buffs are affecting me.  I know for a fact that I take a different amount of damage when with a Templar than compared to a Fury.   I would be lying if I didn't say I feel safer with a Templar than a Fury in most situations.  <BR><BR>You may find DPS to be the penultimate pinnacle to achieve as a Templar for whatever reason, but I could care less what DPS the Templar is doing.  <BR><BR>**EDIT FOR INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT**<BR><BR>EDIT:  For small groups - some of the best duo combos do not even HAVE a healer.  Warlock + Conjurer is incredibly powerful, relying on co-ordination of stifles/stuns combined with DPS, for instance.   The point is that classes are DIFFERENT - some play out better in certain situations.  Others play out better against certain mobs or types of encounters.<BR></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Sokolov on <SPAN class=date_text>11-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:23 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinnstein's Monster on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:45 AM</span>

[Caethre]

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN><SPAN>Stop underplaying your strengths to win pity, it's pathetic.<BR><BR></SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>This is not about 'pity'. It is about the simple facts, that right now, Templars are underbalanced.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Since you do not play a templar, you do not have the faintest clue. Coming here, to the Templar board, calling Templars 'pathetic' is just trolling and inciting flames.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Sokolov]

On the contrary, tanks know acutely how different healers play out in various situations.  I adjust my stances and CA sequence of spells depending on healer and mob type. <div></div>

[Big Da]

<DIV> <P></P> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR>On the contrary, tanks know acutely how different healers play out in various situations.  I adjust my stances and CA sequence of spells depending on healer and mob type.<BR> <BR> <HR> <P>Ever thought that then causes the healer to adjust their play style? Sounds like the beginning of a vicious cycle to me. :smileyhappy:</P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Big Dave on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:00 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

lol, you might beright!  but it's really not so drastic as that... For example, with shamans I stay in defensive longer/more with liberal use of stuns/interrupts to give time to debuff, after which I may opt to switch to offensive at that ppint, with druids I use my damage reduction abilities more often, and reserve my stuns for spike damage, and with templars I tend to be more offensive in nature, both because they can handle it better, and also to offset their lack of addition dps directly or indirectly. <div></div>

[Dalchar]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:I think the "why" is rather easily found: a matter of compounding effects...For furies, when 90% of what you have beefs up dps, (and it does, about everything other than SOW and Group Invis), your dps is bound to go up, and while solo, those augmentations that do significantly better on someone else in a group, can at least help yourself.  Plus the ability to buff INT is no joke... dropping about 170 INT (was about 250ish to 90ish)off buffs made my minimum nuke go down by about 150 and max go down by nearly 300.  I think that INT buffs affect things on a percent basis when I looked at that.  Add that to the traditional higher dps/more armor restrictions vs lower dps/heavy armor options, and then you have what we have.Templar's abilities to prevent and additionally heal damage in one way or another (mez, stun, heal procs, ac procs, etc) while allowing them shine in groups like no other, but they no real parseable effect that you will likely notice until much later levels if you played another priest up to high levels... (ie keeping one mob of two ++'s pacified and stunned while group mows down the other, you reduced the incoming dps onto your tank by 50%).  Although that was fabulous, while solo, makes for a miserable time trying to get much of anything done as your dps suffers from all the non-damage utilities and fringes.<hr></blockquote>Try again. Just by looking at the raw dps the fury damaging spells do. Like someone said, high 30's fury group damage spell does almost triple damage compared to low 50's templars group damage spell. Same trend is with single target nukes.Also when I got my int from 70 to 170 as a templar, I noticed about 25% increase in the damage my spells do. Now at that  250 you mentioned, that would mean about 40% damage potential. And you just mentioned that the 40% is 300 points for a fury. For me it is 150. So it is definately not just the intelligence difference. Int explains half of the damage difference, the rest that remains is due to pure damage capability of any given ability.In addition, templars have no longer any ac procs. The heal procs also ase so minimal that they are less useful than imbued armor. Mez we dont even have, we only have the aggro range reducer which is only useful when gathering. Stun is also useless as it has too long cast time compared to duration. Also why would I want to mez one of the 2^^'s? After all they dont hit that hard and my healing requires mt to get hit. So if I pacify one, I also loe 50% of my healing ability. Also the pacify breaks when the target takes any damage and as far as I have seen, aa's are always used against those by any class that have them.So my dps suffers because I have craploads of totally useless utility. And in fact, every class have utility and they still do dps. But not templars, we have equal healing power compared to other healers, we have equal number of utility spells (nuff said about their usefulness) but we have low dps compared to other healing classes who can heal also and have the same number of utility.So templar dps is low just because of the class name. Nothing more. It is time for SoE to delete clerics from class listings and give us our /reclass. No one with a bit of sence and knowledge would start a cleric in current situation. Exept if they hope situation will improve.And if you disagree, please tell me why to roll a templar. Healing? Sure, we can heal, but so can any other pries subclass. Utility? Which one precisely? DPS? Give me a break. Heavy armor? One of the reasons why we get interrupted more often than other classes.You see it is not any single thing alone that makes templars suck. It is all that crap piled together.</span><hr></blockquote>I'm just offering thoughts and ideas, no different than anyone else, trying to be constructive.</span>Templar 30 : Symbol of Ryltan: An augmentation that increases the Health pool of the Templar and allies and has a chance to increase Armor Class when successfully attacked. There's the AC proc I was refering to, not proc'd on attack but a proc upon being attacked, I don't have %'s or numbers.  I was more pointing to the fact that in general 90% of what you have that's utility is defensive oriented... and thus unless that spell description is wrong, it is an AC Proc... and considering I've seen it referenced a few times.  And I believe it gets upgraded as you level probably at 44... but that's the one I saw and copied it over.The 40% (if that is the number, I've not done the math) is a 150 to you while 300 to fury, and if that is 50% of the difference.... there's 3 other factors that made the fury's nuke  larger: the longer cast/recast and the general armor to dps tradeoff, then the other offensive/defensive concept.  Thus the net result of significantly larger nuke. I didn't say you would want to necessarily pacify one of two, but that you could do so if so chosen, chances are it'd be more likely used in the event of a named mob (as a guess).  How appropriate or useful to do so is entirely up the the player.  Some people love this ability, others such as yourself clearly hate it.I never claimed for any of this to be fair or appropriate, just ideas on why things are the way they are.  The templar community in general seems very very split on the ideas of what of your utilities are useful and what are not.  The ones you absolutely hate and claim to be completely useless and awful, I've seen others post that they like and love them.  Maybe both sides need to think it over (maybe things don't suck that bad, or maybe things aren't quite as rosey as the other thinks) or maybe those whom hate the changes are probably more suited to a slightly different class now as this revamp has upset many and made others very happy, as much as it'd stink to make a different toon with the time investment.   I dunno it would stink to have a class you liked turned into something you didn't, but at the same time it's not a reason to get angry at those that are happy with the changes to their class, nor angry at the people whom are of your same class and very pleased with the very changes you hate.<div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR>OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN><SPAN>Stop underplaying your strengths to win pity, it's pathetic.<BR><BR></SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>This is not about 'pity'. It is about the simple facts, that right now, Templars are underbalanced.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Since you do not play a templar, you do not have the faintest clue. Coming here, to the Templar board, calling Templars 'pathetic' is just trolling and inciting flames.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>1 - It's not a "fact" that Templars are underbalanced.  That's an opinion, and not universally accepted.</P> <P>2 - It's irrelevant whether or not he plays as a Templar.  His points should be judged on their own merits or faults, regardless of what class he plays primarily.  To say otherwise is to practice in <EM>ad hominem argumentum</EM> fallacies.  </P> <P>One may as well start arguing all manner of standards which can allow an opinion in this forum, such as whether or not someone raids, whether they own a proper standard of gear, whether or not they group/solo, what level they are, how many posts they've made, so on and so forth.  It's all irrelevant to points being made.  You can hate someone and yet it doesn't make what they say any more or less true.  </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Gcha]

<DIV> <P>I dunno, if I need an operation I think I’ll get a doctor to do it, not just someone who’s watched doctors operate.</P></DIV>

[quetzaqotl]

<DIV>-as funny and smart as it was i editted it away-</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <SPAN class=date_text>11-01-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>11:55 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:55 AM</span>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P>I dunno, if I need an operation I think I’ll get a doctor to do it, not just someone who’s watched doctors operate.</P></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>From a logical discussion standpoint, it doesn't matter if someone is certified as a doctor or not, so long as they can perform the necessary operation.  You're free to discount someone's opinion for whatever reasons you personally want:  class, level, race, age, posts, seniority, whatever.  However, from a logical discussion standpoint - all of those reasons are irrelevant.  It's what's said, and not who's saying it that matters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Gchang wrote:<div> <p>I dunno, if I need an operation I think I’ll get a doctor to do it, not just someone who’s watched doctors operate.</p></div><hr></blockquote> That's true.  Both you and I would likely choose a priest to heal our party, and would prefer it not be a recently purchased ebayed priest.   I know that's not quite what you meant, but if you were to actually use your logic in this situation it would become: "I dunno, if I need an opinion on the balance of priest types I think I'll get someone who's seen all of them to do it..." more so than "I dunno, if I need an opinion </span><span>on the balance of priest types I think I'll get a priest of a specific subclass..."</span> <span> So might I say this: I've tanked for every priest subclasses on one occassion or another, giving me a standpoint from which to evaluate each of them.  Can most Templars say the same? I would argue that this leaves me in a better position to evaluate each priest's relative usefulness to a group than a Templar themselves.  And that's really the point isn't it?  The question isn't "Do Templars have utility?" it's whether the class itself is in balance with the other priest types.  I would argue that it is.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:19 PM</span>

[SatinyCh]

<DIV>If anyone wants to join the "I hate Furys now club" I'm taking members right now.</DIV>

[Gcha]

<DIV> <P>You’re absolutely right. From now on I’m going to go to a tank forum for any info I need on playing a templar.</P></DIV>

[quetzaqotl]

<P>Oh im sure you'll get many happy members :smileytongue: </P> <P>ill tie myself to this here wood and if someone could be so friendly to set fire to it... k thnx.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SatinyChef wrote:<BR> <DIV>If anyone wants to join the "I hate Furys now club" I'm taking members right now.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:20 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gchang wrote:<div> <p>You’re absolutely right. From now on I’m going to go to a tank forum for any info I need on playing a templar.</p></div><hr></blockquote> Actually, you may find that you might learn something there - about their tactics, how they operate, etc. which may allow you to adapt your own strategies to the different tank types you will play with.  But really, that's not what I am saying.  The question here involves Templar IN RELATION to other priest tpyes (tho most notably Furies), thus, being one of the subjects of study, the Templar in question may not necessarily be the best in answering the question.  Even if you see another priest healing in your party, it is unlikely you will have as clear a vision of how much that priest is helping as a tank who plays with different priest types on a regular basis. It does not mean the tank knows HOW to play the Priest (altho in my case I have played, from time to time, as my friend's templar who is level 53 now), nor should the tank presume to tell you how to play either.  But his knowledge in evaluting the relative powers of each priest should not be so readily dismissed.</span><div></div>

[SatinyCh]

<DIV>hey quetzoseorpo4380jdi89</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>take your broken english and your silly opinions back to the fury board. kaytanksbai</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>lolz</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>LOLZ</DIV>

[SatinyCh]

<DIV>NAAAAATURE</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>goulet.</DIV>

[quetzaqotl]

<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>01:33 PM</span>

[SatinyCh]

<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>01:33 PM</span>

[Timaarit]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:<span>I'm just offering thoughts and ideas, no different than anyone else, trying to be constructive.</span>Templar 30 : Symbol of Ryltan: An augmentation that increases the Health pool of the Templar and allies and has a chance to increase Armor Class when successfully attacked. There's the AC proc I was refering to, not proc'd on attack but a proc upon being attacked, I don't have %'s or numbers.  I was more pointing to the fact that in general 90% of what you have that's utility is defensive oriented... and thus unless that spell description is wrong, it is an AC Proc... and considering I've seen it referenced a few times.  And I believe it gets upgraded as you level probably at 44... but that's the one I saw and copied it over.<hr></blockquote>Sorry to say this but the lvl 44 Symbol line (symbol of pinzarn) spell does not have that ac proc. So I bet that lvl 30 spell does not have it either, the wording is just an oversight from the devs when they nerfed templars at lu13. This can be backed up by the fact that the old description had exact numbers for the proc. No numbers on the lvl 30 nor 44 spells.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:04 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:<span>I'm just offering thoughts and ideas, no different than anyone else, trying to be constructive.</span>Templar 30 : Symbol of Ryltan: An augmentation that increases the Health pool of the Templar and allies and has a chance to increase Armor Class when successfully attacked. There's the AC proc I was refering to, not proc'd on attack but a proc upon being attacked, I don't have %'s or numbers.  I was more pointing to the fact that in general 90% of what you have that's utility is defensive oriented... and thus unless that spell description is wrong, it is an AC Proc... and considering I've seen it referenced a few times.  And I believe it gets upgraded as you level probably at 44... but that's the one I saw and copied it over.<hr></blockquote>Sorry to say this but the lvl 44 Symbol line (symbol of pinzarn) spell does not have that ac proc. So I bet that lvl 30 spell does not have it either, the wording is just an oversight from the devs when they nerfed templars at lu13. This can be backed up by the fact that the old description had exact numbers for the proc. No numbers on the lvl 30 nor 44 spells.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class="date_text">11-01-2005</span> <span class="time_text">11:04 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Yea, most spell lines had to re-worked in the revamp.  They now mostly sport a primary effect and sometimes with a secondary effect. It was getting kind of insane with the multiple effects that did not really reflect spell line progression.  I had, on my zerker, 8 different buffs which shared 3 timers, but all stacked, and provided over 2000 in collective HP buffs if I remember correctly.  And I seem to recall Templar mitigation procs being much the same, with somewhere in the area of 20% extra mitigation possible through procs.</span><div></div>

[Cowdenic]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR>I think the "why" is rather easily found: a matter of compounding effects...<BR><BR>For furies, when 90% of what you have beefs up dps, (and it does, about everything other than SOW and Group Invis), your dps is bound to go up, and while solo, those augmentations that do significantly better on someone else in a group, can at least help yourself.  Plus the ability to buff INT is no joke... dropping about 170 INT (was about 250ish to 90ish)off buffs made my minimum nuke go down by about 150 and max go down by nearly 300.  I think that INT buffs affect things on a percent basis when I looked at that.  Add that to the traditional higher dps/more armor restrictions vs lower dps/heavy armor options, and then you have what we have.<BR><BR>Templar's abilities to prevent and additionally heal damage in one way or another (mez, stun, heal procs, ac procs, etc) while allowing them shine in groups like no other, but they no real parseable effect that you will likely notice until much later levels if you played another priest up to high levels... (ie keeping one mob of two ++'s pacified and stunned while group mows down the other, you reduced the incoming dps onto your tank by 50%).  Although that was fabulous, while solo, makes for a miserable time trying to get much of anything done as your dps suffers from all the non-damage utilities and fringes.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Try again. Just by looking at the raw dps the fury damaging spells do. Like someone said, high 30's fury group damage spell does almost triple damage compared to low 50's templars group damage spell. Same trend is with single target nukes.<BR><BR>Also when I got my int from 70 to 170 as a templar, I noticed about 25% increase in the damage my spells do. Now at that  250 you mentioned, that would mean about 40% damage potential. And you just mentioned that the 40% is 300 points for a fury. For me it is 150. So it is definately not just the intelligence difference. Int explains half of the damage difference, the rest that remains is due to pure damage capability of any given ability.<BR><BR>In addition, templars have no longer any ac procs. The heal procs also ase so minimal that they are less useful than imbued armor. Mez we dont even have, we only have the aggro range reducer which is only useful when gathering. Stun is also useless as it has too long cast time compared to duration. Also why would I want to mez one of the 2^^'s? After all they dont hit that hard and my healing requires mt to get hit. So if I pacify one, I also loe 50% of my healing ability. Also the pacify breaks when the target takes any damage and as far as I have seen, aa's are always used against those by any class that have them.<BR><BR>So my dps suffers because I have craploads of totally useless utility. And in fact, every class have utility and they still do dps. But not templars, we have equal healing power compared to other healers, we have equal number of utility spells (nuff said about their usefulness) but we have low dps compared to other healing classes who can heal also and have the same number of utility.<BR><BR>So templar dps is low just because of the class name. Nothing more. It is time for SoE to delete clerics from class listings and give us our /reclass. No one with a bit of sence and knowledge would start a cleric in current situation. Exept if they hope situation will improve.<BR><BR>And if you disagree, please tell me why to roll a templar. Healing? Sure, we can heal, but so can any other pries subclass. Utility? Which one precisely? DPS? Give me a break. Heavy armor? One of the reasons why we get interrupted more often than other classes.<BR><BR>You see it is not any single thing alone that makes templars suck. It is all that crap piled together.<BR></SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm just offering thoughts and ideas, no different than anyone else, trying to be constructive.<BR><BR></SPAN><BR>Templar 30 : Symbol of Ryltan: An augmentation that increases the Health pool of the Templar and allies and has a chance to increase Armor Class when successfully attacked.<BR><BR>There's the AC proc I was refering to, not proc'd on attack but a proc upon being attacked, I don't have %'s or numbers.  I was more pointing to the fact that in general 90% of what you have that's utility is defensive oriented... and thus unless that spell description is wrong, it is an AC Proc... and considering I've seen it referenced a few times.  And I believe it gets upgraded as you level probably at 44... but that's the one I saw and copied it over.<BR><BR>The 40% (if that is the number, I've not done the math) is a 150 to you while 300 to fury, and if that is 50% of the difference.... there's 3 other factors that made the fury's nuke  larger: the longer cast/recast and the general armor to dps tradeoff, then the other offensive/defensive concept.  Thus the net result of significantly larger nuke. <BR><BR>I didn't say you would want to necessarily pacify one of two, but that you could do so if so chosen, chances are it'd be more likely used in the event of a named mob (as a guess).  How appropriate or useful to do so is entirely up the the player.  Some people love this ability, others such as yourself clearly hate it.<BR><BR>I never claimed for any of this to be fair or appropriate, just ideas on why things are the way they are.  The templar community in general seems very very split on the ideas of what of your utilities are useful and what are not.  The ones you absolutely hate and claim to be completely useless and awful, I've seen others post that they like and love them.  Maybe both sides need to think it over (maybe things don't suck that bad, or maybe things aren't quite as rosey as the other thinks) or maybe those whom hate the changes are probably more suited to a slightly different class now as this revamp has upset many and made others very happy, as much as it'd stink to make a different toon with the time investment.   I dunno it would stink to have a class you liked turned into something you didn't, but at the same time it's not a reason to get angry at those that are happy with the changes to their class, nor angry at the people whom are of your same class and very pleased with the very changes you hate.<BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>They removed the mit buff on that line as i recall.

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:The 40% (if that is the number, I've not done the math) is a 150 to you while 300 to fury, and if that is 50% of the difference.... there's 3 other factors that made the fury's nuke  larger: the longer cast/recast and <b>the general armor to dps tradeoff, then the other offensive/defensive concept</b>.  Thus the net result of significantly larger nuke. I didn't say you would want to necessarily pacify one of two, but that you could do so if so chosen, chances are it'd be more likely used in the event of a named mob (as a guess).  How appropriate or useful to do so is entirely up the the player.  Some people love this ability, others such as yourself clearly hate it.<div></div><hr></blockquote>This started to bother me here. Because it is totally invalid argument. The armor trade-off meant that templars take less damage per hit but get hit more often. Net result is that templars take equal damage but get interrupted more. Offensive/defensive consept on the other hand should not affect the base damage of any gicen damage spell, yet as it is, templar spells do 1/2 of the base damage per second that furies damage spell do. I know where this comes from too. It comes from times pre lu13 when intelligence didnät affect spell damage. Thies meant that offensive vs defensive had to be made by base damage. But they didn't think of that with lu13 and thus the gap between healing classes widened. As it is, I really think that all healers with same intelligence and level should do equal dps. With this kind of balance, the offensive vs defensive role you described will be acceptable.</span><div></div>

[Caethre]

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>hmm complete incombat rez, mez, odyssey? whats that? all crap?</BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You are staring blindly on dps and foget about the rest.<BR> </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>You missed a few other things too, but let's just bundle those in.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Compared to 1500+ nukes, ~400 DPS, SoW, Snare and Group Invis? Yeah, its all "crap", to use your phrase.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Caethre on <span class=date_text>11-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:48 AM</span>

[quetzaqotl]

<P>Oh yeah furies do 400 dps on average now eh heh and please say our nukes are utility that should be balanced with stuff like odyssey??!</P> <P>I can make all kinds of strange comparisons between our classes and say hey [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] how are your def buffs balanced against my sow/invis its crap compared to that!</P> <P>Our nuke +dots are part of our offensive nature (add that the very obvious advantage furies have with buffing int I have around 300 int how much int do you have?) while you get the def goodies furies lack and you can try to come and say hey what about porcupine?? Well what about porcupine, its our trade off spell for your FB (your lvl 50 heal) we dont have a good speciality heal at 50 we get a damage shield which shields the target for 1.4 k in resists for 36 secs and breaks after 25 hits doing around 150 dmg a hit and<STRONG> stuns</STRONG> us.</P> <P>Yes its a good spell but that and our hp buff every healer has and our small mitig buff is all we have to protect our group, while you got much more tools to keep your group from harm/prevend attacks and proc heals or whatever.</P> <P> </P> <p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:14 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>quetzaqotl wrote:<p>Oh yeah furies do 400 dps on average now eh heh and please say our nukes are utility that should be balanced with stuff like odyssey??!</p> <p>I can make all kinds of strange comparisons between our classes and say hey [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] how are your def buffs balanced against my sow/invis its crap compared to that!</p> <p>Our nuke +dots are part of our offensive nature (add that the very obvious advantage furies have with buffing int I have around 300 int how much int do you have?) while you get the def goodies furies lack and you can try to come and say hey what about porcupine?? Well what about porcupine, its our trade off spell for your FB (your lvl 50 heal) we dont have a good speciality heal at 50 we get a damage shield which shields the target for 1.4 k in resists for 36 secs and breaks after 25 hits doing around 150 dmg a hit.</p><hr></blockquote>Then where are our heals that are due to our defensive nature? You nukes are nukes and you offensive nature should only increase them as much as templar defensive nature should decrease them. By default the nukes should do the same damage and furies get more with the +int buff. However furies get higher damage by default plus additional damage with then intelligence buff. Templar wisdom buff adds a bit to our power but does not increase our heals. FB is a spell that stuns us. So we can choose between <300pts + < 400pts reactives and FB (which heals <400pts). So FB does not increase the amount we can heal unless we cast group reactive, single target reactive and it in a row. And if FB is really needed, the single target reactive is down before FB is casted and group reactive follows shortly. Besides, the issue now is in the base damage of our basic nukes. Feel free to ask a sage how much disparity there is with the basic nukes along. And by default, they should do the same damage withing priest types. Our utility should then define whether we get extra damage or extra healing power. As it is, all classes heal the same but old versions of different priest classes still exists when it comes to damage. This damage needs to be balanced too.</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>quetzaqotl wrote:<p>Oh yeah furies do 400 dps on average now eh heh and please say our nukes are utility that should be balanced with stuff like odyssey??!</p> <p>I can make all kinds of strange comparisons between our classes and say hey [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] how are your def buffs balanced against my sow/invis its crap compared to that!</p> <p>Our nuke +dots are part of our offensive nature (add that the very obvious advantage furies have with buffing int I have around 300 int how much int do you have?) while you get the def goodies furies lack and you can try to come and say hey what about porcupine?? Well what about porcupine, its our trade off spell for your FB (your lvl 50 heal) we dont have a good speciality heal at 50 we get a damage shield which shields the target for 1.4 k in resists for 36 secs and breaks after 25 hits doing around 150 dmg a hit.</p><hr></blockquote>Then where are our heals that are due to our defensive nature? You nukes are nukes and you offensive nature should only increase them as much as templar defensive nature should decrease them. By default the nukes should do the same damage and furies get more with the +int buff. However furies get higher damage by default plus additional damage with then intelligence buff. Templar wisdom buff adds a bit to our power but does not increase our heals. FB is a spell that stuns us. So we can choose between <300pts + < 400pts reactives and FB (which heals <400pts). So FB does not increase the amount we can heal unless we cast group reactive, single target reactive and it in a row. And if FB is really needed, the single target reactive is down before FB is casted and group reactive follows shortly. Besides, the issue now is in the base damage of our basic nukes. Feel free to ask a sage how much disparity there is with the basic nukes along. And by default, they should do the same damage withing priest types. Our utility should then define whether we get extra damage or extra healing power. <b>As it is, all classes heal the same but old versions of different priest classes still exists when it comes to damage. This damage needs to be balanced too.</b></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>And when the Fury casts Porcupine she can't heal either...it's no different from Focused Benefaction really, except your's heal, and her's does damage. Again, the concept of "utility" is relegated to a very narrow minded view.  Ultimately, for true balance, EVERYTHING, including damage, is "utility."  Otherwise you end up with very stale classes.  There is no reason, "by default," for all priest types to have the same nukes.  Templars are damage reduction priests, and Furies are damage increase priests, and both can heal.  EDIT:  Burning Question: It's not as if Furies have more spells than you, so if you don't count some of these spells as utility, what the heck ARE they?</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>11-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:37 AM</span>

[Nari]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div></div><span> EDIT:  Burning Question: It's not as if Furies have more spells than you, so if you don't count some of these spells as utility, what the heck ARE they?</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">11-02-2005</span> <span class="time_text">06:37 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>*snicker* That is exactly what I want to ask the developers sometimes.  I gotta admit, those pacify type spells aren't that helpful in a group.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> 3devious wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR>EDIT:  Burning Question: It's not as if Furies have more spells than you, so if you don't count some of these spells as utility, what the heck ARE they?</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>*snicker* That is exactly what I want to ask the developers sometimes.  I gotta admit, those pacify type spells aren't that helpful in a group.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Not all spells are intended for all situations.  For example, I've repeatedly had to ask a Paladin in my guild why he continually nukes, heals, and uses AE attacks in group settings where he's the only tank in a group with a crowd control, a healer, and 3 DPS classes.  He's essentially using the exact same spells and arts he would use when soloing...and routinely ends fights with around 40-60% less power than everyone else in the group.  It took a while to explain to him why he should concentrate on defensively grabbing hate in group settings as opposed to trying to out-damage mages and scouts.  </P> <P>The moral of the story is that not all spells are intended for all situations.  Honestly, do you know a lot of fighters who use their group taunts when they're out soloing?  Just because a spell is situational doesn't mean it's not useful.  It can be incredibly useful in the right situation.  </P> <P> </P>

[Dalchar]

<DIV>Now, one thing that is true in EQ2 that you will find: you don't get something without giving up something else.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is rough, but I believe it to be rather accurrate:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Mages: Give up all armor in favor of basically stats for high dps and then that will inversely go down or up with utilities.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Scouts: Keep their armor and vary dps inversely with utility and further by offensive/defensive disposition.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fighters: Taunts vary with other utilities, dps varies inversely by armor type and offensive/defensive disposition.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Priests: Give up dps in favor of utilities, dps further varies inversely by armor type and offensive/defensive disposition.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templars get smacked twice: once by being a priest, and second by having heavy armor.  Is this a fair trade?  Some will debate that and it can be argued until people are blue in the face.  Templars can wear 100% of all non-class specific armor.  Leather restricted can wear (pre-dof) approximately 40% (based on fabled gear).  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How wonderful the ability to gear yourself however you want is a personal opinion and preference.  I can tell you though through personal experience-- leather gear pre-DOF was AWFUL for a priest as far as about 70% of it went (Wisdom was a rare find on much of it and even then it was usually very low)... now you see more druid-specific leather in DOF, probaby for this very reason.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now the matter of interrupts and fizzles needs to be adjusted across the board, as I agree it's silly that temps should get interrupted so much more as a general rule.  Tanks are okay with it because their arts take a fraction of a second.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So... if templars are base bottom dps... perhaps things were ranked very very roughly, like this... Disregard how useful these may or may not be as it's just an estimation and trying to take a look at what they may be thinking.  And further, perhaps SOE views reactive > ward > regen.  Ward may be better but it's also at the cost of higher agro.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Temp = Temp dps - High physical defense, high hp buff, high damage prevention (stuns, pacify, etc), med magical defensive.</DIV> <DIV>Inquis = Temp + 5%, dps - High melee offense buff, high hp buff, something else here.</DIV> <DIV>Mystic = Temp + 10% dps - Medium defensive buff, hp/power buff, strong debuffs/damge prevention</DIV> <DIV>Defiler = Temp +15% dps - Medium defensive, strongest debuffs, offensive stuff</DIV> <DIV>Warden = Temp + 20% dps - Defensive buffs, power buffs, high magical defensive</DIV> <DIV>Fury = Temp +25% base dps -  Medium melee offensive, power buffs, high magical offensive, low magical and physical defensive.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again this is a very rough guess and far from complete end all be all but seems to be relatively accurrate and I'm sure there's TONS of info you could throw in.  Point being, I'm thinking temps got whacked twice and furies just happened to get a benefit from what they buffed and how the things ranked up.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Is this fair, or is everything right or as it should be? I highly doubt it, I've no quabble with temps getting a dps boost in some way as boring tedium = lame.  I'm just trying to maybe help organize why things may be the way they are.  Feel free to agree or disagree.</DIV>

[Nari]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <p>The moral of the story is that not all spells are intended for all situations.  Honestly, do you know a lot of fighters who use their group taunts when they're out soloing?  Just because a spell is situational doesn't mean it's not useful.  It can be incredibly useful in the right situation.  </p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>I agree with you there.  I have been incredibly spoiled by the weakness line that we used to have.  I spend the most fun times of the game duoing with a squishy elf conjuror.  So, the right situation doesn't come up for me as often as it used to. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

One thing that I was wondering about. How do priests compare in terms of self wisdom and power buffs? Afterall, a primary deteriminant on "how much can you heal" is dictated by how much power you have. I think my defiler can self increase power by about 8%. <div></div>

[Kendricke]

The Praetoreate line is great for increasing wisdom (and strength). 

[Dalchar]

Furies buff group wis by about 65 at 60 at adept 3 Spirit.  Power buff at 58 at adept3 buffs power directly by about 650 give or take 25ish I think.  Course, it's not all just power either, it's also how much can you buff the HPs by too in order to make sure they can take the hits so that you have hp to heal in the first place. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Problably the best average of the two-- hp buffing and power availability through gear and buffs would be an overall winner.  For example, I can only buff hp by 280.  Can you really imagine trying to safely make a 2k heal when you can only get the tank up to 4500?  That'd make me nervous as could be, so makes some sense for the druids to buff hp less but have a more steady flow of hp incoming. <div></div>

[bigmak20]

<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:<div>Now, one thing that is true in EQ2 that you will find: you don't get something without giving up something else.</div> <div> </div> <div>This is rough, but I believe it to be rather accurrate:</div> <div> </div> <div>Mages: Give up all armor in favor of basically stats for high dps and then that will inversely go down or up with utilities.</div> <div> </div> <div>Scouts: Keep their armor and vary dps inversely with utility and further by offensive/defensive disposition.</div> <div> </div> <div>Fighters: Taunts vary with other utilities, dps varies inversely by armor type and offensive/defensive disposition.</div> <div> </div> <div>Priests: Give up dps in favor of utilities, dps further varies inversely by armor type and offensive/defensive disposition.</div> <div> </div> <div>Templars get smacked twice: once by being a priest, and second by having heavy armor.  Is this a fair trade?  Some will debate that and it can be argued until people are blue in the face.  Templars can wear 100% of all non-class specific armor.  Leather restricted can wear (pre-dof) approximately 40% (based on fabled gear).  </div> <div> </div> <div>How wonderful the ability to gear yourself however you want is a personal opinion and preference.  I can tell you though through personal experience-- leather gear pre-DOF was AWFUL for a priest as far as about 70% of it went (Wisdom was a rare find on much of it and even then it was usually very low)... now you see more druid-specific leather in DOF, probaby for this very reason.</div> <div> </div> <div>Now the matter of interrupts and fizzles needs to be adjusted across the board, as I agree it's silly that temps should get interrupted so much more as a general rule.  Tanks are okay with it because their arts take a fraction of a second.</div> <div> </div> <div>So... if templars are base bottom dps... perhaps things were ranked very very roughly, like this... Disregard how useful these may or may not be as it's just an estimation and trying to take a look at what they may be thinking.  And further, perhaps SOE views reactive > ward > regen.  Ward may be better but it's also at the cost of higher agro.</div> <div> </div> <div>Temp = Temp dps - High physical defense, high hp buff, high damage prevention (stuns, pacify, etc), med magical defensive.</div> <div>Inquis = Temp + 5%, dps - High melee offense buff, high hp buff, something else here.</div> <div>Mystic = Temp + 10% dps - Medium defensive buff, hp/power buff, strong debuffs/damge prevention</div> <div>Defiler = Temp +15% dps - Medium defensive, strongest debuffs, offensive stuff</div> <div>Warden = Temp + 20% dps - Defensive buffs, power buffs, high magical defensive</div> <div>Fury = Temp +25% base dps -  Medium melee offensive, power buffs, high magical offensive, low magical and physical defensive.</div> <div> </div> <div>Again this is a very rough guess and far from complete end all be all but seems to be relatively accurrate and I'm sure there's TONS of info you could throw in.  Point being, I'm thinking temps got whacked twice and furies just happened to get a benefit from what they buffed and how the things ranked up.</div> <div> </div> <div>Is this fair, or is everything right or as it should be? I highly doubt it, I've no quabble with temps getting a dps boost in some way as boring tedium = lame.  I'm just trying to maybe help organize why things may be the way they are.  Feel free to agree or disagree.</div><hr></blockquote>Dalcharis, if the breakdown/tradeoff was as you've guesstimated I think Templars would be content.  Unfortunately, the Fury is +300% base dps (or more).  Which has the priest balance not very balanced.  Your description is approx what everyone thought we'd get with 'balance'.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span>And when the Fury casts Porcupine she can't heal either...it's no different from Focused Benefaction really, except your's heal, and her's does damage. Again, the concept of "utility" is relegated to a very narrow minded view.  Ultimately, for true balance, EVERYTHING, including damage, is "utility."  Otherwise you end up with very stale classes.  There is no reason, "by default," for all priest types to have the same nukes.  Templars are damage reduction priests, and Furies are damage increase priests, and both can heal.  EDIT:  Burning Question: It's not as if Furies have more spells than you, so if you don't count some of these spells as utility, what the heck ARE they?</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">11-02-2005</span> <span class="time_text">06:37 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Now this post made no sense to me at least. I just wrote that if we have equal heals and equal number of utility, our DPS spells should by default do the same damage. This means without any buffs on and with same intelligence and level. This is not the case since fury spells do at that point double the damage a templar spell does.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>Now this post made no sense to me at least. I just wrote that if we have equal heals and equal number of utility, our DPS spells should by default do the same damage. </SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You're assuming that we have equal heals and utility to other classes.  You're also assuming a zero sum equation situation, where everything is balanced on some imaginary line point for counterpoint.  <BR>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:<span>Now this post made no sense to me at least. I just wrote that if we have equal heals and equal number of utility, our DPS spells should by default do the same damage. </span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>You're assuming that we have equal heals and utility to other classes.  You're also assuming a zero sum equation situation, where everything is balanced on some imaginary line point for counterpoint.  <div></div><hr></blockquote>And you are assuming we dont. According to your own posts, all healers can heal the group equally and that is what developers are aiming at. Thus my point is correct according to your own posts. Our utility sucks. Others utility might suck too, but at least ours is not better. And if A=a, B=b, C has to equal c or the is imbalance. As it is all healing is equal and amount of utility is equal, but DPS is not. Thus there is imbalance no matter how much you are moving the goal posts. </span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE>Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>Now this post made no sense to me at least. I just wrote that if we have equal heals and equal number of utility, our DPS spells should by default do the same damage. </SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You're assuming that we have equal heals and utility to other classes.  You're also assuming a zero sum equation situation, where everything is balanced on some imaginary line point for counterpoint.  <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>And you are assuming we dont. According to your own posts, all healers can heal the group equally and that is what developers are aiming at. Thus my point is correct according to your own posts. Our utility sucks. Others utility might suck too, but at least ours is not better.<BR><BR>And if A=a, B=b, C has to equal c or the is imbalance. As it is all healing is equal and amount of utility is equal, but DPS is not. Thus there is imbalance no matter how much you are moving the goal posts.<BR><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I've never said all healing is equal.  I've stated that all priests can keep a group standing by an equal baseline standard.  Templars are still the best healers by my reckoning.  I suspect this is supported by parses that the developers themselves can pull.  </P> <P> </P>

[Dalchar]

<span><blockquote><hr>bigmak2010 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:stuff<hr></blockquote>Dalcharis, if the breakdown/tradeoff was as you've guesstimated I think Templars would be content.  Unfortunately, the Fury is +300% base dps (or more).  Which has the priest balance not very balanced.  Your description is approx what everyone thought we'd get with 'balance'.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote> A large part of what's going on and being shown in parses however, definately aren't fact though either.  If I am actively free to add dps (rather easy content, good tank), my dps is actually just around a guardian's level, while they're defensive.    For all practical purposes, I find myself around 120dps in those situations.  I'm almost always about the same dps or lower than the defensive guardian I almost never come close to a pally (unless he's slacking) and certainly never a zerker.  The only time there's a glaring upswing, is when there's 4+ mobs, and the AOE lands for full on each and Ring of Fire is up, and generally, I'm grouped with 2 mages, so the mobs die in 20s and my 250-350dps that gets displayed means quite a bit less compared to the 900dps and 800dps of the warlock and wizard.  One of the big things displayed all over here is a lack of information able to be provided, and all the postulation and theorizing on how eachother works under ideal conditions and how things actually pan out in a real situation.  I've had tanks try and go into offensive stance and continue to tank, and it becomes a huge huge pain and I have to tell them to knock it off... "Well I could do it with the templar..." was the response... I'm no slouch, all my spells are adept3 and master I know how to play this class <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> been doing it since launch.  So as can be told, I'm generally continuously healing and lobbing nukes isn't always an option, and I'm not always hitting those huge dps numbers people seem to swear we always hit (if we always hit it, we're clearly not doing the healing).  So there's apparently some significant differences in defensive capabilities provided by templars that a fury can't quite match (personally I'm thinking it's the hp buffs).  Just as there's offensive capabilities that furies have that others can't match. I'm Thinking our base nuke is about 25% over a templars, with the same lower INT, but they then made it double recast with increased cast time, which made that 125 to your 100, turn into 250 to your 100 (for simple numbers, as I hate big math), and that's before the INT bonuses which I am thinking add a % bonus to nukes, not a flat number... so.. enter bigger gap...  However, you don't always have the option to chaincast every nuke and dot the instant it pops while we had the option of fewer casts. Course, the big problem I think we'd face is if you up templar dps, you have to go through and do similar to the other priests.   Net result will likely be no one perfectly happy <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Cuz then it gets even closer to fighter, which is slow too, and so on and so forth.  The net result is... everyone should go group, as soloing is the absolute pits, it's slow even on my fury. </span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:<span>Now this post made no sense to me at least. I just wrote that if we have equal heals and equal number of utility, our DPS spells should by default do the same damage. </span> <hr> </blockquote>You're assuming that we have equal heals and utility to other classes.  You're also assuming a zero sum equation situation, where everything is balanced on some imaginary line point for counterpoint.  <hr></blockquote>And you are assuming we dont. According to your own posts, all healers can heal the group equally and that is what developers are aiming at. Thus my point is correct according to your own posts. Our utility sucks. Others utility might suck too, but at least ours is not better. And if A=a, B=b, C has to equal c or the is imbalance. As it is all healing is equal and amount of utility is equal, but DPS is not. Thus there is imbalance no matter how much you are moving the goal posts. </span><hr></blockquote>My opinion: Basic healing is balanced. Utility, which includes secondary healing and other abilities as well as increasing group DPS directly or indirectly, as well as availability of gear, ways to increase self power pool, etc. is also balanced. Others seem to see that everything is mostly balanced, if you exclude DPS.  But I don't agree with that. </span><span>~ Also, I just realized something: notably absence is any reference to Shamans.  Do Templars advocate an increase in Shaman DPS to match Furies too?  Or do Shamans have other utility that Templars do not have which match the DPS output of Furies?  What about Inquisitors?  Are they not Templars with more debuffs (which are arguably less effective than buffing as mobs' levels increase, and increasingly less useful against lower level mobs which die faster).</span> <div></div>

[Cowdenic]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE>Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>Now this post made no sense to me at least. I just wrote that if we have equal heals and equal number of utility, our DPS spells should by default do the same damage. </SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You're assuming that we have equal heals and utility to other classes.  You're also assuming a zero sum equation situation, where everything is balanced on some imaginary line point for counterpoint.  <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>And you are assuming we dont. According to your own posts, all healers can heal the group equally and that is what developers are aiming at. Thus my point is correct according to your own posts. Our utility sucks. Others utility might suck too, but at least ours is not better.<BR><BR>And if A=a, B=b, C has to equal c or the is imbalance. As it is all healing is equal and amount of utility is equal, but DPS is not. Thus there is imbalance no matter how much you are moving the goal posts.<BR><BR></SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>My opinion:<BR>Basic healing is balanced. <BR>Utility, which includes secondary healing and other abilities as well as increasing group DPS directly or indirectly, as well as availability of gear, ways to increase self power pool, etc. is also balanced.<BR><BR>Others seem to see that everything is mostly balanced, if you exclude DPS.  But I don't agree with that.<BR><BR></SPAN><SPAN>~<BR>Also, I just realized something: notably absence is any reference to Shamans.  Do Templars advocate an increase in Shaman DPS to match Furies too?  Or do Shamans have other utility that Templars do not have which match the DPS output of Furies?  What about Inquisitors?  Are they not Templars with more debuffs (which are arguably less effective than buffing as mobs' levels increase, and increasingly less useful against lower level mobs which die faster).</SPAN><BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Of course Shamans should recieve the same increase in DPS as Templars.

[bigmak20]

I like your writing Dalcharis.  But for an fyi I've parsed and calculated in and out of group and the numbers I'm throwing around are real.. that's also why I frequently state a range.  It really is situational.  But it clearly trends to a difference of a factor of 3 in DPS. Now.. you say you think the numbers you've quoted are how it's setup. I believe you. I believe the devs think there's a something along the lines of a 25% difference in our DPS.  I believe there's a good chance if you were to make a perfectly analytical and balanced (int, lvls, all factors) hypothetical comparison the numbers would show something like a 25% difference. So why is there a 300% difference in gameplay? In-game environmental factors and plain old bad design. Such as: -- what happens in most groups?  Does -any- priest chain nuke in a group?  heck no.  So what's more valuable to a group?  One big nuke every... say... 25 seconds?  or one puny nuke every 25 seconds?  Kill the mob faster = less healing needed and fewer deaths.  Many times MoBs die in 20 sec or less in groups and no healing is even needed -- so which is better -- a Fury contributing a significant amount of DPS to kill the MoB in 10 or 12 seconds instead of 20 seconds or a Templar standing around with nothing to do?  In groups when many MoBs aggro and pull there isn't time to cast many nukes is there?  So if you get to cast a few is it better that they are a really big nuke every 25 secs or a really puny one? -- what happens in solo?  Do solo fights last several minutes for a Fury so their DPS balances w/i 25% of a Templars? no.  The Fury kills the mob in 25 seconds (2 casts of the big nuke against whites and 1 cast plus some smaller against blues.. not to mention much greater melee waiting for cast timers) and the Templar takes a minute and a half with worse then pathetic melee to match the pathetic nukes and a liberal sprinkling of interrupts to make the Templar want to lurk SOE websites raising hell. -- what happens with multi mobs in solo?  Swear to god if I get 3 or more MoBs on me I can go close to a minute with no more then 1 or 2 spells getting cast (typical with rapidly hitting smaller mobs ... like gators in SS for example).  My armor proc out DPS's me for about 2 minutes.  Does anyone ... other then other Templar ... know how insanely annoying that is?  Those fights take 3 to 5 minutes.  For a Fury ... 1 minute OR LESS with their big AoE special.  In those situations a Fury DPS is probably 10 times a Templars.  Happens all the time when harvesting; you're standing there watching the nodes you've been waiting for get harvested by others while you are incapacitated by pathetic little mobs.  Top that off with the Fury invising thru the aggro you have to spend hours and hours to kill (yeah -- real and usable utility and still get heals and DPS) to have a shot at the same number of nodes.  It makes for [Removed for Content] of Templar.  -- raids.  Entirely situational.  Sometimes a Templar will shine depends on the nature of the incoming damage.  Good design for raids maybe? It's 300% on average due to bad design and what happens in a typical game scenario (non raid) not the hard numbers on the spells. Taking all that into consideration -- even if SOE did it perfectly in gameplay Templar's are not healing much better for the DPS and utility disparity (both; not one or the other alone).  We gave up almost all non-healing utility to get that few percent of utility in healing? Or did we give up DPS for the few percent of healing?  Both?  Both is too step a price and it's imbalance. Furies are getting picked on... frankly, they are in the same boat Templars were in pre LU13.  The least broke priest... so now everyone measures up to you. The good news IMO is the healing is about right.  Templar just sucks to play outside of big raids. <div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR>So why is there a 300% difference in gameplay? <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>How do you quantify "gameplay"?  <BR>

[Lego]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR><BR>what happens with multi mobs in solo?  Swear to god if I get 3 or more MoBs on me I can go close to a minute with no more then 1 or 2 spells getting cast (typical with rapidly hitting smaller mobs ... like gators in SS for example).  My armor proc out DPS's me for about 2 minutes.  Does anyone ... other then other Templar ... know how insanely annoying that is?  Those fights take 3 to 5 minutes.  For a Fury ... 1 minute OR LESS with their big AoE special.  In those situations a Fury DPS is probably 10 times a Templars. <BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Nice post there Bigmak, all in all I think a pretty accurate description so I won't waste time quoting it all.  One tiny correction though.  That big AoE special is incredibly hard to cast when being hit by multiple mobs.  So it's actually quite a bit less disparity in this situation.  A lot of my damage in that type of situation is actually from my damage shield.  And for mobs you can actually xp on, i.e. anything not green, the difference is even more pronounced.    <BR>

[bigmak20]

Gameplay is what happens in the game vs. what the devs think should happen based on spells numbers. Gameplay is what happens in the game vs. what the devs hypothesize will happen. Such as the solo priest vs. a solo mob scenario.  Sure.. over a minute and a half a Furies DPS may balance w/i 25% of a Templars.  It just doesn't matter when the Fury consistently kills the MoB in 25 or 30 secs and the Templar takes 1 min 30 sec.  The Templar are [Removed for Content] because in GAMEPLAY the Fury has 300% more DPS --- even though the spell numbers may very well show that over time the DPS is balanced within 25%.  Note I don't know for sure the hypothetical numbers show that 25% I'm just accepting D's posit since I don't believe SOE developers can possibly be ignorant enough to intentionally build this much disparity into priest DPS. <div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR> It just doesn't matter when the Fury consistently kills the MoB in 25 or 30 secs and the Templar takes 1 min 30 sec.  <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>What creature are you attacking that takes 90 seconds to solo?!<BR>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> bigmak2010 wrote: It just doesn't matter when the Fury consistently kills the MoB in 25 or 30 secs and the Templar takes 1 min 30 sec.  <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>What creature are you attacking that takes 90 seconds to solo?! <div></div><hr></blockquote>On this note I think my Defiler at level 32 takes apprx 45-60 seconds to solo a level 34 bear, depending on resists and interrupts.  My time is likely to be shorter as she is kind of a twink and I also use an imbued wand for nuking.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span>My opinion: Basic healing is balanced. Utility, which includes secondary healing and other abilities as well as increasing group DPS directly or indirectly, as well as availability of gear, ways to increase self power pool, etc. is also balanced. Others seem to see that everything is mostly balanced, if you exclude DPS.  But I don't agree with that. </span><span>~ Also, I just realized something: notably absence is any reference to Shamans.  Do Templars advocate an increase in Shaman DPS to match Furies too?  Or do Shamans have other utility that Templars do not have which match the DPS output of Furies?  What about Inquisitors?  Are they not Templars with more debuffs (which are arguably less effective than buffing as mobs' levels increase, and increasingly less useful against lower level mobs which die faster).</span> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Now we are getting somewhere. So if basic healing is balanced (IMO it is too) and utility adds a bit to templars healing power and some to other classes dps, then why isn't basic dps balanced? And yes we templars (well I at least, it is not away from me) do, shamans should have exactly the same basic damage as furies. And all other healing classes too. Let our utility then decide the overall dps and healing power.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> bigmak2010 wrote: It just doesn't matter when the Fury consistently kills the MoB in 25 or 30 secs and the Templar takes 1 min 30 sec.  <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>What creature are you attacking that takes 90 seconds to solo?! <div></div><hr></blockquote>90 seconds is pretty fast... Anyway doubling my dps meant that I now kill stuff in about 40 seconds. And that means green with down arrow takes about 35s while yellow with down arrow takes about 45s. This at lvl 54, with 192 int and just noticed that I still have one app4 nuke, others are adept III's. Before using lots of plat to upgrade, it took me 90 seconds to kill those. Note that it takes my lvl 45 monk (with a few a3's and mostly a1's) about 15 to 20 seconds to kill those greens (they are yellow to him). And our lvl 44 fury is a close match to me in dps while fighting solos, and he can out dps me by a huge margin when we are fighting groups. How do I know? By fighting side by side similar opponents. True that I had my avoidance buff on him and he though it was funny that I parried some of the hits he would have taken... And why is mu monk so fun to play? No interruptions. No fizzles. Most of my skills do something useful instead of a half-mez that breaks with damage. So instead of a routine button smashing, I can finish faster by making different attack pattern depending on situation. Also what I have noticed is that my monks survivability is actually higher than my templars. Just because I can stun my opponents _fast_ when they are casting.</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span>My opinion: Basic healing is balanced. Utility, which includes secondary healing and other abilities as well as increasing group DPS directly or indirectly, as well as availability of gear, ways to increase self power pool, etc. is also balanced. Others seem to see that everything is mostly balanced, if you exclude DPS.  But I don't agree with that. </span><span>~ Also, I just realized something: notably absence is any reference to Shamans.  Do Templars advocate an increase in Shaman DPS to match Furies too?  Or do Shamans have other utility that Templars do not have which match the DPS output of Furies?  What about Inquisitors?  Are they not Templars with more debuffs (which are arguably less effective than buffing as mobs' levels increase, and increasingly less useful against lower level mobs which die faster).</span> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Now we are getting somewhere. So if basic healing is balanced (IMO it is too) and utility adds a bit to templars healing power and some to other classes dps, then why isn't basic dps balanced? And yes we templars (well I at least, it is not away from me) do, shamans should have exactly the same basic damage as furies. And all other healing classes too. Let our utility then decide the overall dps and healing power.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>What's the difference between basic dps and overall dps in a non-dps class?</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote>Sokolov wrote:<span>What's the difference between basic dps and overall dps in a non-dps class?</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>The fact that basic dps is imbalanced between all healing classes. Furies are dps oriented by the utility they have, still the nukes they have, do 2x the damage templar nukes do. In addition they get buffs that add about 50% damage on top of that. I accept the 50% as templars get healing oriented utility, but I do not accept the 2x base damage. All healers now heal roughly the same but they do massively different dps.</span><div></div>

[Caethre]

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>What's the difference between basic dps and overall dps in a non-dps class?<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>We are talking about priests here... what exactly <STRONG>is</STRONG> a non-dps class?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote>Sokolov wrote:<span>What's the difference between basic dps and overall dps in a non-dps class?</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>The fact that basic dps is imbalanced between all healing classes. Furies are dps oriented by the utility they have, still the nukes they have, do 2x the damage templar nukes do. In addition they get buffs that add about 50% damage on top of that. I accept the 50% as templars get healing oriented utility, but I do not accept the 2x base damage. All healers now heal roughly the same but they do massively different dps.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I just don't see a reason why basic dps should be balanced as the primary function of a priest is healing.  DPS should be considered part of Priest Utility, which as I stated before, I believe is already in balance.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote>Sokolov wrote:<span>What's the difference between basic dps and overall dps in a non-dps class?</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>The fact that basic dps is imbalanced between all healing classes. Furies are dps oriented by the utility they have, still the nukes they have, do 2x the damage templar nukes do. In addition they get buffs that add about 50% damage on top of that. I accept the 50% as templars get healing oriented utility, but I do not accept the 2x base damage. All healers now heal roughly the same but they do massively different dps.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I just don't see a reason why basic dps should be balanced as the primary function of a priest is healing.  DPS should be considered part of Priest Utility, which as I stated before, I believe is already in balance.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Well your beliefs are wrong. DPS is not balanced according to utility. You see all priests have basic nukes as utility. Some priests have additional damage spells as utility while some have heals. Fact is that the basic nukes do not do equal damage. So the basic DPS utility for priests is not balanced. In addition to this imbalanced basic dps utility, some healing classes get additional utility that enchances that dps. That means those classes get double bonus for being 'dps -oriented' while those that are healing oriented, dont get any benefits for their basic healing through the utility. You see earlier the amount healed depended on class and utility added to that. It was considered imbalanced. Now that has been balanced, but there is the remnant of similarly imbalanced dps. And it needs to be balanced regardless of your beliefs.</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><span></span><b>DPS is not balanced according to utility. </b> </blockquote></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Not to, but with, is my contention.  I disagree that there is an extra category of "basic damage."</span><div></div>

[Nari]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<blockquote><hr><div></div>What creature are you attacking that takes 90 seconds to solo?! </blockquote><div></div><hr></blockquote>When I compared my parse of fighting the even con mob to yours a week or so ago, you finished the spider in just under a minute, it took me 90 seconds to kill it. I have since upgraded my computer and it doesn't take quite that long, but yeah, some of us are a bit slower than you.  (In my combat, I spent more time doing HOs but I did not get interupted as often as you.)</span><div></div>

[bigmak20]

Let's simplify... Can we all agree that in this game there are 2 things going on.. period. 1) Killing 2) Healing There is only one exception -- raids.  The very vast majority of the time you are 1) killing or 2) healing. Can we all agree if you can't kill or heal as good as others in your archetype then nothing else matters? (no [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] other priests needed serious fixing post LU13.. duh.. delete that off topic response now) If one priest can kill 3 times better (or 2 or 4 or 5)  then how is it balance that another priest gets -- in return for that disparity -- to heal maybe .1 (point one -- I think it's less then that but being generous again) times better? Is it your contention that's balance Sokolov and Que?  If it is.. just say it and move on.

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> 3devious wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> What creature are you attacking that takes 90 seconds to solo?!<BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>When I compared my parse of fighting the even con mob to yours a week or so ago, you finished the spider in just under a minute, it took me 90 seconds to kill it.<BR>I have since upgraded my computer and it doesn't take quite that long, but yeah, some of us are a bit slower than you.  (In my combat, I spent more time doing HOs but I did not get interupted as often as you.)<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>But I'm not decked out in Fabled gear (certainly not during those parses), I'm not using an imbued weapon typically (though I often switch to my Heirophant's Crook in certain soloing situations), and I'm still in mostly Tier 5 common crafted.  In addition, I have NO Adept III's at my level and only have my heals as Master II choices.  What is it that makes me able to take down targets in half the time other Templars (typically Templars who have much better gear and spells than I)?  Can someone tell me this?  </P> <P>Realize also that those "just under a minute" reports were the worst case scenarios.  I was able to take most targets in under 40 seconds.  This wasn't just "my observations" or "my experience".  This was a full parse on the Haunted House for three straight runs - dozens of fights.  </P> <P>So again, I ask, how is it that I'm ripping through blue and white targets in 30-50 seconds while other Templars claim they can't do it in less than 90 seconds?  In some cases (I can quote this), 50+ Templars with much better gear and spells than I have are complaining they can't handle level 46 targets in less than "five minutes".  </P> <P>If I'm to believe these claims, then I'm curious as to what I'm doing so differently that I'm outperforming Templars in much, much better gear and spells, who in some cases actually have higher levels than me.</P> <P>P.S. - At least two Templars in these forums claim that Furies can solo 3-4 times faster than Templars.  Does that mean that if I'm taking down targets in 30-50 seconds, there are Furies taking out the same targets in roughly 7-13 seconds?  If that's the case, how fast are Warlocks taking out these identical targets?  Do they just look at targets and watch them die?</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P> <p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:13 AM</span>

[Nari]

I am probably outfitted the same as you were in that fight that I compare my parses with.  I should go in there again with the new system.  It really does seem that I get through them faster now. Why is it that everytime I talk to you, I find myself eager to go home and check something but frustrated in knowing that I have at least a 6 hour wait? <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> 3devious wrote:<BR>I am probably outfitted the same as you were in that fight that I compare my parses with.  I should go in there again with the new system.  It really does seem that I get through them faster now.<BR>Why is it that everytime I talk to you, I find myself eager to go home and check something but frustrated in knowing that I have at least a 6 hour wait? <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I'm the same way when I see someone claim that "X takes Y time".  It may seem petty, but I live to prove such claims false.  I think of it as my own personal version of Mythbusters.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Dalchar]

<div></div>DPS bonus on nukes is based on your armor type and whether you're defensive or offensive oriented.  The big one is the armor type.  The trade-off whether anyone likes it or not-- for more armor choices you get less dps, for significantly less armor choices, you get significantly higher dps.  That's a fact in this game and likely not to go away.  I don't think most templars would willingly wear most leather, a significant amount of it is rather poor for a priest to use.  The ability to wear heavy allows greater stats, and to vary yourself to whatever it is you could possibly desire, procs, heavy armor stats generally are slightly higher, etc.  About 60% of the fabled armor in the game is chain and plate unless they've drastically altered the pattern since DOF was launched.  This game is very hellbent on giving up armor for dps and I very strongly doubt that priests are going to be left out of that tiering.  It's not just "avoidance versus mitigation" it's all about selection, availability, and stats too.  You may absolutely loathe the fact that that's the case, but it's how it is and very likely to remain.  Unless you're willing to have the game overhauled so that temps can only wear leather or cloth, I'd not expect to ever reach nuke/dps equality. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:03 PM</span>

[Fumbles]

I would take the dps difference between a berserker and a monk over the difference between a templar and a fury.

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><span></span><b>DPS is not balanced according to utility. </b> </blockquote></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Not to, but with, is my contention.  I disagree that there is an extra category of "basic damage."</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Wel me and most templars disagree with that. This game is not meant for grouping only. That has been stated. Yet some classes simply are a pain to play without a group. Hence whether or not devs admit, there is category for basic damage for every class.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>P.S. - At least two Templars in these forums claim that Furies can solo 3-4 times faster than Templars.  Does that mean that if I'm taking down targets in 30-50 seconds, there are Furies taking out the same targets in roughly 7-13 seconds?  If that's the case, how fast are Warlocks taking out these identical targets?  Do they just look at targets and watch them die?</p> <><> <div></div><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class="date_text">11-03-2005</span> <span class="time_text">10:13 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Actually you are pretty close there. Wizards can one shot those spiders. Warlocks can basically one shot the group mobs with 2 or 3 down arrows. A conjurer kills those spiders in a few seconds. My lvl 45 monk kills them in 15 seconds while my lvl 54 templar kills them on 30 seconds. And since you will take not on how 'fast' that is, I have a3 nukes and 190 intelligence (with legendary intelligence gear) while I am soloing. Still it takes me twice as long as average geared fury. Just make a guess if you dont remeber how much that 10 seconds of additional speed costed me. 40 seconds to kill those spiders is 20 seconds too long.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>40 seconds to kill those spiders is 20 seconds too long.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What about Wardens?  Does it take you twice as long as a Warden?  An Inquisitor?  A Defiler?  Why are we always comparing our DPS to the priest which has the most extreme difference to us in regards to DPS?  Why not a Mystic?</P> <P><BR> </P>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:<span>40 seconds to kill those spiders is 20 seconds too long.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <>What about Wardens?  Does it take you twice as long as a Warden?  An Inquisitor?  A Defiler?  Why are we always comparing our DPS to the priest which has the most extreme difference to us in regards to DPS?  Why not a Mystic?<> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Because I think furies are how all priests should work. This means all priest classes basic dps (without any utility or buffs) should be equivalent to unbuffed furys basic dps. And basic means using basic damaging spells, not utility damage. Thus I will always compare it to fury dps. Clear enough?</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>40 seconds to kill those spiders is 20 seconds too long.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><>What about Wardens?  Does it take you twice as long as a Warden?  An Inquisitor?  A Defiler?  Why are we always comparing our DPS to the priest which has the most extreme difference to us in regards to DPS?  Why not a Mystic?<><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Because I think furies are how all priests should work. This means all priest classes basic dps (without any utility or buffs) should be equivalent to unbuffed furys basic dps. And basic means using basic damaging spells, not utility damage.<BR><BR>Thus I will always compare it to fury dps. Clear enough?<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>So you're actually making the argument that all priests should have an increase in DPS, right?  I just want to make sure of that before I let the fighter forums know about this.  :smileywink:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>NOTE:  Furies aren't healing as well as Templars, even without our "healing utility" spells (which frankly can't be removed from the equation anyway). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><div>NOTE:  Furies aren't healing as well as Templars, even without our "healing utility" spells (which frankly can't be removed from the equation anyway). </div> <hr></blockquote>Now I want numbers on this one. Do you actually mean that HoT's and wards dont heal as well as reactives (on average situations) and that direct heals are not balanced in time vs. healed amount? Then you really need to go find out what druid heals are all about. I agree that the healing ability depends on situations. Templars are better healers when single target is taking large number of hits while furies shine on slow but hard hitting opponents. Wardens on the other hand are in the middle class on both cases with their wards. And if utility heals cannot be removed from equation, then dps utility cannot be removed either. So triple our dps instead of doubling it.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <DIV>NOTE:  Furies aren't healing as well as Templars, even without our "healing utility" spells (which frankly can't be removed from the equation anyway). </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Now I want numbers on this one. Do you actually mean that HoT's and wards dont heal as well as reactives (on average situations) and that direct heals are not balanced in time vs. healed amount? Then you really need to go find out what druid heals are all about.<BR><BR>I agree that the healing ability depends on situations. Templars are better healers when single target is taking large number of hits while furies shine on slow but hard hitting opponents. Wardens on the other hand are in the middle class on both cases with their wards.<BR><BR>And if utility heals cannot be removed from equation, then dps utility cannot be removed either. So triple our dps instead of doubling it.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>You demand numbers and provide none of your own.  You provide no evidence, no examples, not even the level of your anonymous Templar...yet you demand that I continue to provide numbers on a subject I've already provided numbers on.  Shall I quote your myriad posts where you claim that Templars are only able to heal for 5% more than Furies overall?  What numbers did you provide to back up such claims?  Which program or application do you use to create such numbers...or do you hand parse your logs?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Shall I point out that on Test right now, our healing utility just increased even more than it was already?  That our Sign spell just received a double boost in effectiveness?  We're already healing dramatically better than other priests, and the numbers I've already provided show this.  However, since you're challenging me to provide yet more numbers, I'll do so throughout the weekend...just be sure to provide your own numbers as well to keep it fair.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><span></span><b>DPS is not balanced according to utility. </b> </blockquote></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Not to, but with, is my contention.  I disagree that there is an extra category of "basic damage."</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Wel me and most templars disagree with that. This game is not meant for grouping only. That has been stated. Yet some classes simply are a pain to play without a group. Hence whether or not devs admit, there is category for basic damage for every class.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I am not sure where you get "most" from, there is no way you can know that.  These threads are a terrible indication of the overall attitude of the Templar community as the nature of them will always draw those who are unhappy as opposed to those who are happy - it's jusy human nature.  Gchang stated in another thread that this isn't really a big deal and increasing Templar DPS by a minor amount does not constitute a nerf to other priests.  This is a curious position as it is Templars who were most adamant about other classes not getting their healing increased to Templar levels. What I also find curious is the lack of a similiar outcry from other non-Furies - this suggests that the issue is not one of priest balance, but of Templar malcontent.</span><div></div>

[Caethre]

<DIV>OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>These threads are a terrible indication of the overall attitude of the Templar community as the nature of them will always draw those who are unhappy as opposed to those who are happy - it's jusy human nature.  <BR></SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Half right.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>These boards draw lots of posts from two kinds of people.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One kind are, indeed, those who are not happy. These tend to post on specific subjects that irk them. Some are serial malcontents, who are forever unhappy with something. Others are specifically unhappy with specific things. These account for the huge influx of posts on the Templar forums since LU13. Indeed, this board was largely quiet until then.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But the other kind are the people, a minority in number but not in posts, are those who just like arguing on internet message boards. They often do not even care that it is not their class, or their playstyle, or their server, if there is an argument to be had. The most extreme of these people can easily be identified by having postcounts measured in the thousands.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Are Templars 'malcontent'? Well, actually, I'd say yes, though I'd prefer to use the word 'unhappy', judging by how the Templars I mix with and I've spoken to on my server feel, at least.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I can't possibly imagine why that might be ... I mean ... when they are sitting LFG whilst watching other priests solo at thrice the rate and then seeing them get taken for the groups first due to being better overall ... it is such fun ... <sarcasm off></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> Kendricke wrote: <div></div> <div>NOTE:  Furies aren't healing as well as Templars, even without our "healing utility" spells (which frankly can't be removed from the equation anyway). </div> <hr> </blockquote>Now I want numbers on this one. Do you actually mean that HoT's and wards dont heal as well as reactives (on average situations) and that direct heals are not balanced in time vs. healed amount? Then you really need to go find out what druid heals are all about.I agree that the healing ability depends on situations. Templars are better healers when single target is taking large number of hits while furies shine on slow but hard hitting opponents. Wardens on the other hand are in the middle class on both cases with their wards.And if utility heals cannot be removed from equation, then dps utility cannot be removed either. So triple our dps instead of doubling it.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <div>You demand numbers and provide none of your own.  You provide no evidence, no examples, not even the level of your anonymous Templar...yet you demand that I continue to provide numbers on a subject I've already provided numbers on.  Shall I quote your myriad posts where you claim that Templars are only able to heal for 5% more than Furies overall?  What numbers did you provide to back up such claims?  Which program or application do you use to create such numbers...or do you hand parse your logs?</div> <div> </div> <div>Shall I point out that on Test right now, our healing utility just increased even more than it was already?  That our Sign spell just received a double boost in effectiveness?  We're already healing dramatically better than other priests, and the numbers I've already provided show this.  However, since you're challenging me to provide yet more numbers, I'll do so throughout the weekend...just be sure to provide your own numbers as well to keep it fair.</div> <hr></blockquote>You call 5 to 10% tremendous. Then I wish to know what 300% is. Just tell me and I'll tell you why I want to know.</span><div></div>

[Gcha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Sokolov wrote:</P> <P><SPAN><BR>Gchang stated in another thread that this isn't really a big deal and increasing Templar DPS by a minor amount does not constitute a nerf to other priests.  This is a curious position as it is Templars who were most adamant about other classes not getting their healing increased to Templar levels.</P></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Just felt like throwing that in an entirely unrelated spot, did ya, Sokolov =)   Well, lucky for you, it's time for my morning coffee and internet reading session.  Since you're studying The Writings of Gchang, you must also have noticed that I also said it wouldn't bother me to bump other priest classes too, or to make a templar buff which can only be used in soloing. I know, I'm weird about this, I think of it as a game, you know, where people are supposed to be having fun.  As I see it a heck of a lot of templars are unhappy about their soloing ability so just throw them a little bone and let's all be happy =) ... and throw anyone else who needs it a bone while you're doing it.</P> <P>It is eerily prophetic that you chose the word "curious" though, as two days ago I started my soon-to-be-Fury toon and named him Cuurius.  Yeah that's right Caethre, all your talk has made me, well, "Cuurius".  This is your fault =)</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P><EM><FONT color=#cc0000>I wasn't arguing with you, I was just talking - Sokolov, November 4, 2005<BR></FONT></EM><BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gchang on <span class=date_text>11-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:37 AM</span>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <DIV>NOTE:  Furies aren't healing as well as Templars, even without our "healing utility" spells (which frankly can't be removed from the equation anyway). </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Now I want numbers on this one. Do you actually mean that HoT's and wards dont heal as well as reactives (on average situations) and that direct heals are not balanced in time vs. healed amount? Then you really need to go find out what druid heals are all about.<BR><BR>I agree that the healing ability depends on situations. Templars are better healers when single target is taking large number of hits while furies shine on slow but hard hitting opponents. Wardens on the other hand are in the middle class on both cases with their wards.<BR><BR>And if utility heals cannot be removed from equation, then dps utility cannot be removed either. So triple our dps instead of doubling it.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>You demand numbers and provide none of your own.  You provide no evidence, no examples, not even the level of your anonymous Templar...yet you demand that I continue to provide numbers on a subject I've already provided numbers on.  Shall I quote your myriad posts where you claim that Templars are only able to heal for 5% more than Furies overall?  What numbers did you provide to back up such claims?  Which program or application do you use to create such numbers...or do you hand parse your logs?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Shall I point out that on Test right now, our healing utility just increased even more than it was already?  That our Sign spell just received a double boost in effectiveness?  We're already healing dramatically better than other priests, and the numbers I've already provided show this.  However, since you're challenging me to provide yet more numbers, I'll do so throughout the weekend...just be sure to provide your own numbers as well to keep it fair.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You call 5 to 10% tremendous. Then I wish to know what 300% is.<BR><BR>Just tell me and I'll tell you why I want to know.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>No, I don't call 5% tremendous.  I call 20-25% differentials in healing ability tremendous.  I call 40-50% situational differentials tremendous.  Even then, I (unlike some) do not equate healing to DPS on a 1:1 ratio.  It's not a zero sum equation.  </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Caethre wrote:<div>OOC.<blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span>These threads are a terrible indication of the overall attitude of the Templar community as the nature of them will always draw those who are unhappy as opposed to those who are happy - it's jusy human nature. </span><hr></blockquote>Half right.</div><div> </div><div>These boards draw lots of posts from two kinds of people.</div><div> </div><div>One kind are, indeed, those who are not happy. These tend to post on specific subjects that irk them. Some are serial malcontents, who are forever unhappy with something. Others are specifically unhappy with specific things. These account for the huge influx of posts on the Templar forums since LU13. Indeed, this board was largely quiet until then.</div><div> </div><div>But the other kind are the people, a minority in number but not in posts, are those who just like arguing on internet message boards. They often do not even care that it is not their class, or their playstyle, or their server, if there is an argument to be had. The most extreme of these people can easily be identified by having postcounts measured in the thousands.</div><div> </div><div>Are Templars 'malcontent'? Well, actually, I'd say yes, though I'd prefer to use the word 'unhappy', judging by how the Templars I mix with and I've spoken to on my server feel, at least.</div><div> </div><div>I can't possibly imagine why that might be ... I mean ... when they are sitting LFG whilst watching other priests solo at thrice the rate and then seeing them get taken for the groups first due to being better overall ... it is such fun ... </div><div> </div><div> </div><hr></blockquote>Hey, Ken, look.  Apparently if we don't agree with her we must be the minority post-[Removed for Content] who argue for the sake of it.</span><div></div>

[Caethre]

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR>Hey, Ken, look.  Apparently if we don't agree with her we must be the minority post-[Removed for Content] who argue for the sake of it.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Agreeing with me or not is irrelevant. Unlike some, I do not claim to be anything special, I am just one very normal Templar player in many regards.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Noting that a view is an overwhelmingly minority view is relevant, even if it in no way makes that view invalid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Noting that someone has such different play circumstances to most other players that their view is skewed by that is certainly relevant, as it somewhat invalidates their point.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Noting that someone is not even a Templar player, yet posts multiple times on almost every Templar thread on the Templar class board, attempting to ridicule Templars raising valid concerns regarding their own class, is very relevant, as it means that that player has not even a clue, but just wants to cause arguments and flamewars.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR>OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR>Hey, Ken, look.  Apparently if we don't agree with her we must be the minority post-[Removed for Content] who argue for the sake of it.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Agreeing with me or not is irrelevant. Unlike some, I do not claim to be anything special, I am just one very normal Templar player in many regards.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Noting that a view is an overwhelmingly minority view is relevant, even if it in no way makes that view invalid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Noting that someone has such different play circumstances to most other players that their view is skewed by that is certainly relevant, as it somewhat invalidates their point.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Noting that someone is not even a Templar player, yet posts multiple times on almost every Templar thread on the Templar class board, attempting to ridicule Templars raising valid concerns regarding their own class, is very relevant, as it means that that player has not even a clue, but just wants to cause arguments and flamewars.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I disagree.  I know some high level fighters who know less about their class than I do.  Does that make my opinions on Paladins less relevant because I play a Templar as my primary?  Does that automatically make their knowledge greater than mine?</P> <P>Of course it's easier to dismiss a person than to attempt to refute points.  That doesn't make the points inaccurate or incorrect.  </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Gcha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR>OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR>Hey, Ken, look.  Apparently if we don't agree with her we must be the minority post-[Removed for Content] who argue for the sake of it.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Agreeing with me or not is irrelevant. Unlike some, I do not claim to be anything special, I am just one very normal Templar player in many regards.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Noting that a view is an overwhelmingly minority view is relevant, even if it in no way makes that view invalid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Noting that someone has such different play circumstances to most other players that their view is skewed by that is certainly relevant, as it somewhat invalidates their point.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Noting that someone is not even a Templar player, yet posts multiple times on almost every Templar thread on the Templar class board, attempting to ridicule Templars raising valid concerns regarding their own class, is very relevant, as it means that that player has not even a clue, but just wants to cause arguments and flamewars.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I disagree.  I know some high level fighters who know less about their class than I do.  Does that make my opinions on Paladins less relevant because I play a Templar as my primary?  Does that automatically make their knowledge greater than mine?</P> <P>Of course it's easier to dismiss a person than to attempt to refute points.  That doesn't make the points inaccurate or incorrect. </P> <P><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Of course that misses Caethre's point entirely.  The point is WHY is he here =)  (not that he bothers me, I kind of enjoy jousting with him, lol).</P> <P>Obviously he is here to stir up things.  Being the champion of, ahem, proper decorum in the forum, one would think you of all people would want to discourage that =)  But then, he does tend to agree with you, doesn't he =p<BR></P>

[bigmak20]

/agree with Gchang completely

[Kendricke]

<P>It's all similar to the anti-Gaige posts that were generated in the Guardian forums after he started posting there.  You can attack the person, or the person's points.  I don't care what class someone plays, or what level they are, so long as what they post follows the rules of the forums.</P> <P>Now, I'm still looking for the rule of conduct which restricts which forums you're allowed to post in.  Since I can find none that restricts Berserkers or Warlocks from posting in the Templar forums, I'm not going to argue his right to post here any more than I'd argue anyone's right to post here - whether or not they agree with me.  Care to find a post of mine which argues against ANYONE posting in the Templar forums?  </P> <P>I've consistently argued that we should argue against points, not against those who raise the points.  I find no inconsistency in my arguments here.</P> <P> </P>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <p>No, I don't call 5% tremendous.  I call 20-25% differentials in healing ability tremendous.  I call 40-50% situational differentials tremendous.  Even then, I (unlike some) do not equate healing to DPS on a 1:1 ratio.  It's not a zero sum equation.  </p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>So you are totally ignorant of the fact that druids can heal groups situationally 6 times better than templars? That is right, 6 times. Still, you are consistent about not ansvering any questions.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: <P><BR>No, I don't call 5% tremendous.  I call 20-25% differentials in healing ability tremendous.  I call 40-50% situational differentials tremendous.  Even then, I (unlike some) do not equate healing to DPS on a 1:1 ratio.  It's not a zero sum equation.  </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>So you are totally ignorant of the fact that druids can heal groups situationally 6 times better than templars? That is right, 6 times.<BR><BR>Still, you are consistent about not ansvering any questions.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>You've actually responded to posts of mine where I've stated that Shaman and Druids can heal better than Templars in certain situations, so I confused how you can make that statement.</P> <P> </P>

[Dalchar]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>No, I don't call 5% tremendous.  I call 20-25% differentials in healing ability tremendous.  I call 40-50% situational differentials tremendous.  Even then, I (unlike some) do not equate healing to DPS on a 1:1 ratio.  It's not a zero sum equation. </p><div></div><hr></blockquote>So you are totally ignorant of the fact that druids can heal groups situationally 6 times better than templars? That is right, 6 times.Still, you are consistent about not ansvering any questions.</span><div></div><hr>For every situation you can point to a druid doing better than a templar, you can find another one where a templar could do better than the others.  That situation happens 99% of the time, in the event of a very large very nasty DOT/DD... an occassion where it's a vast majority of the time in a raid.  In this same raid in this same instance, without the hitpoints provided by a cleric, that regen may not even stand a chance.  A situation where both classes should be glad to have eachother really. The problem with "situations" though is that there's so many of them and each different and everyone can argue until they're blue in the face and both sides both have valid points.  Temps can drastically decrease incoming damage, druids can drastically improve outgoing damage.  Regens can be wasted, reactives can be wasted, wards can be wasted, both group and single target versions... all depending on the "situation".  One is useful in almost all situations, one's useful but only in certain situations but in those situations it can be more powerful.  You can banter back and forth for hours... you really really can.The thing is... you have to keep in mind that it's a good thing, for each class to shine in a certain "situation". I'm thinking a lot of people are at the point of needing to "Agree to disagree" after several 6+ page threads.  As both sides of any arguement have valid points.... Andn what we have here is one group of people believe the other side so adamantly is wrong, that any evidence or reasoning to the contrary is completely ignored.  It's a no-win situation.</blockquote></span>

[Cowdenic]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>40 seconds to kill those spiders is 20 seconds too long.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><>What about Wardens?  Does it take you twice as long as a Warden?  An Inquisitor?  A Defiler?  Why are we always comparing our DPS to the priest which has the most extreme difference to us in regards to DPS?  Why not a Mystic?<><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Because I think furies are how all priests should work. This means all priest classes basic dps (without any utility or buffs) should be equivalent to unbuffed furys basic dps. And basic means using basic damaging spells, not utility damage.<BR><BR>Thus I will always compare it to fury dps. Clear enough?<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>So you're actually making the argument that all priests should have an increase in DPS, right?  I just want to make sure of that before I let the fighter forums know about this.  :smileywink:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>NOTE:  Furies aren't healing as well as Templars, even without our "healing utility" spells (which frankly can't be removed from the equation anyway). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>YOu are correct, Fury Group Hot has 4 times the healing potential of a group reactive for the same power cost. But lets not talk imbalances.<BR>