the bottom line... [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Sokolov

11-02-2005, 08:04 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Vylora wrote:<div></div> <p>yes, i did. but that is beside the point.</p> <p>SoEs descriptions:</p> <blockquote dir="ltr"> <p>Clerics use divine magic to tend to the physical and spiritual needs of their allies. These priests not only heal wounds and banish diseases but also magically augment the health of their comrades.</p> <p>Templars are faithful servants of the divine who use their benevolent powers to aid their fellow adventurers. They mend the wounded and purge illness and suffering from the afflicted.</p> <p>Inquisitors are twisted fanatics who relentlessly advance the doctrines of their religions and accept no compromise in their beliefs. Skilled healers, they minister to the body while seizing control of the soul.</p></blockquote> <p>all i see here... healing and buffing... not a thing about damage at all... cuz clerics arent made for damage...</p> <p>the point of my original post was to find out if we are in fact the best at healing or not...</p><hr></blockquote>As a tank who has received the ministrations of the different priest types, I believe, that yes, Templars heal better. Are they more efficient? That's a much harder question. I know that as a Defiler I expend more power debuffing than actually healing. If I were to rely more on healing I'd end up using more power. The nature of thet class and my playstyle means I am more efficient that way. Other Defilers may be different. And Templars certainly are. All I know is, when I need a healer, the class no longer really matters, when it used to be that I needed a Cleric (Templar/Inquisitor) or Warden if I wanted to do anything difficult. So from my vantage point, Templars augment healing with damage reduction buffs and secondary healing abilties. Defilers augment healing with damage reduction debuffs. Furies augment healing with DPS. Some people seem to be arguing that Fury DPS is too high and outweighs the advantages that the others (partictularly Templar) enjoys. They feel this to the extent that they often suggest Templars have no advantages at all. For me though, ignoring the concept of diminishing returns for a moment, I think we can all agree that one more point of healing is generally more valuable than one more point of damage.</span><div></div>

Antryg Mistrose

11-02-2005, 08:51 PM

<font color="#ffff00"> D</font><font color="#ffff00"><font color="#ffff00">O </font>templars/inquisitors heal better than the other priest archtypes or not?</font> Hopefully not - this was one of the major driving forces behind the whole combat revamp - if you read Sony's own announcements. So Sony's stated intention is not. There are players who perhaps because of the name 'cleric' and their ex eq1 background claim they should be. My opinion is generally yes, but it's no longer head and shoulders above other types. Due to the MT normally being a mitigation rather than avoidance fighter, and the type of mobs predominantly fought, reactive heals, even in their much reduced post LU13 state, still generally outweigh the advantages of other priest classes' speciality heals. A Shamen's ward looks theoretically to be the best possible type of "healing" now, but as I don't play one, its hard to judge, and given how long they were broken for, there aren't yet a whole lot of them about. The direct heals look to be where more of a balancing has gone on, with power cost, cast and recast timers all fiddled with so as to be roughly equal. But as power pools are not equal across classes, players, or levels thats a bit subjective too. Yet another factor why there is no clear answer is the level of priests - comparing between priest classes will favour whoever just got a spell upgraded, as it will be 14 odd levels better than the one it replaced. A lot of the angst here, is about how many abilities were taken away from Templars in order to more balance them against the other priest classes. This would cause negative feelings no matter how well it was handled, and in my opinion, it was handled about as bad as is possible. With priests being more equal, the non-healing differences become more obvious, and as Templars are no longer THE healer soling ability also becomes more important. Something that even the most vociferous templar supporters aggree we don't do so fast. DPS is only relevant to soloing or very small groups, or against easy content, as no priest has the power or casting time to worry about dps in challenging content. Raid content has it's own rules, where you must debuff now, even if this interrupts heals, but there are generally enough priests along on a raid that this can be coordinated. In groups, most content dies so fast that debuffs have marginal benefit at best. The final complication in healing, is who gets interrupted more - not relevant in groups, but VERY important soloing. A heaving armour wearing, non-agile cleric seems to be at a disadvantage there, and having a small health pool doesn't help much either. <div></div>

Jida

11-02-2005, 09:04 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Antryg Mistrose wrote:<BR><FONT color=#ffff00> D</FONT><FONT color=#ffff00><FONT color=#ffff00>O </FONT>templars/inquisitors heal better than the other priest archtypes or not?</FONT> <BR><BR>Hopefully not - this was one of the major driving forces behind the whole combat revamp - if you read Sony's own announcements.<BR><BR>So Sony's stated intention is not.<BR>There are players who perhaps because of the name 'cleric' and their ex eq1 background claim they should be.<BR><BR>My opinion is generally yes, but it's no longer head and shoulders above other types.<BR>Due to the MT normally being a mitigation rather than avoidance fighter, and the type of mobs predominantly fought,<BR>reactive heals, even in their much reduced post LU13 state, still generally outweigh the advantages of other<BR>priest classes' speciality heals. A Shamen's ward looks theoretically to be the best possible type of "healing" now,<BR>but as I don't play one, its hard to judge, and given how long they were broken for, there aren't yet a whole lot of them about.<BR><BR>The direct heals look to be where more of a balancing has gone on, with power cost, cast and recast timers all fiddled<BR>with so as to be roughly equal. But as power pools are not equal across classes, players, or levels thats a bit subjective too.<BR><BR>Yet another factor why there is no clear answer is the level of priests - comparing between priest classes will favour<BR>whoever just got a spell upgraded, as it will be 14 odd levels better than the one it replaced.<BR><BR>A lot of the angst here, is about how many abilities were taken away from Templars in order to more balance them<BR>against the other priest classes. This would cause negative feelings no matter how well it was handled, and in my opinion,<BR>it was handled about as bad as is possible.<BR><BR>With priests being more equal, the non-healing differences become more obvious, and as Templars are no longer THE healer <BR>soling ability also becomes more important. Something that even the most vociferous templar supporters aggree we don't do so fast.<BR>DPS is only relevant to soloing or very small groups, or against easy content, as no priest has the power or casting time to worry about dps in challenging content. Raid content has it's own rules, where you must debuff now, even if this interrupts heals, but there are generally enough priests along on a raid that this can be coordinated. In groups, most content dies so fast that debuffs have marginal benefit at best.<BR><BR>The final complication in healing, is who gets interrupted more - not relevant in groups, but VERY important soloing.<BR>A heaving armour wearing, non-agile cleric seems to be at a disadvantage there, and having a small health pool doesn't help much either.<BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Very well said thought out answer. And this is along the lines of the same feelings i have. </P> <P>Healing is apparently fine across all priest classes.</P> <P>Its templar vs solo content that needs adjustment.</P> <P>Elder</P>

Xaax

11-02-2005, 10:13 PM

<P><SPAN><FONT color=#66ff66><SPAN> </SPAN>Very well said, Jida. I agree that we are the better healers for the most part and agree that the gap that we were leading by per CU13 is much less post update.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#66ff66> There is a ton of opinions out there, the primary thing that concerns me is that Templars have about 80% of all their spells geared to healing, direct, reactives and utility while other priests seem to have about 40% of all their spells geared toward healing yet we only slightly heal better? I would expect to heal twice as well considering the number of spells we have geared toward healing. That is probably my biggest complaint about the revamp so far. </FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#66ff66><SPAN> </SPAN>I know that some say that it’s the whole package that counts in the end. When you stick two Templars in a single group and one just sits there and nukes for that 60 dps, tossing a heal once every 6-9 fights when the wizzy rips, its hard to believe that. </FONT></SPAN></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff66></FONT> </P>

Xaax

11-02-2005, 10:13 PM

<P><SPAN><FONT color=#66ff66><SPAN>ack double post</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff66></FONT> </P><p>Message Edited by Xaax on <span class=date_text>11-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:14 AM</span>

Xaax

11-02-2005, 10:14 PM

<P><SPAN><FONT color=#66ff66><SPAN>ack x3 not sure how that happened</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff66></FONT> </P><p>Message Edited by Xaax on <span class=date_text>11-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:14 AM</span>

bigmak20

11-02-2005, 10:28 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Xaax wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <p><span><font color="#66ff66"><span>ack x3 not sure how that happened</span></font></span></p> <p><font color="#66ff66"></font> </p><p>Message Edited by Xaax on <span class="date_text">11-02-2005</span> <span class="time_text">09:14 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>fizzle, fizzle, interrupt.. even on the boards. <span>:smileytongue:</span> <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span> </span><div></div>

bigmak20

11-02-2005, 10:31 PM

Templars heal slightly better (very slightly) due to all our healing type spells.. as someone previously stated. Leaves us holding an empty bag on everything else which is the problem since healing is very close to equal and SOE has quite emphatically declared it will be.

Kendricke

11-02-2005, 10:42 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR>Templars heal slightly better (very slightly) due to all our healing type spells.. as someone previously stated. Leaves us holding an empty bag on everything else which is the problem since healing is very close to equal and SOE has quite emphatically declared it will be.<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What's "very slightly" better to you is showing as "dramatically" better to me. </P> <P><BR> </P>

bigmak20

11-03-2005, 12:19 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> bigmak2010 wrote:Templars heal slightly better (very slightly) due to all our healing type spells.. as someone previously stated. Leaves us holding an empty bag on everything else which is the problem since healing is very close to equal and SOE has quite emphatically declared it will be. <hr> </blockquote> <p>What's "very slightly" better to you is showing as "dramatically" better to me. </p> <hr></blockquote>woot! Me and Kendricke agree on something (I think that makes twice?). We have maybe 5 to 10 percent better healing as our utility at the cost of one third (or less) the DPS of other priest. That difference is just way too big. Especially when you consider other priest don't have to sacrifice DPS for utility or healing. So you see -- for that 5 to 10 percent better healing (imo it's more like 3% but trying to be generous) we give up non-healing utility AND DPS. That's damned costly compared to other priests. On one hand -- we're told our utility is that extra little bit of healing so we don't need other utility. On the other hand -- we're told we get that extra little bit of healing instead of DPS. In reality -- we give up utility and DPS for that extra little bit healing. OUCH I'm fine with that extra little bit of healing being our utility... but not fine with giving that up -and- DPS. When you look at the complete picture it's not balanced. It all boils down to we used to be clerics and dedicated healers. When healing was equalized no other aspect was considered (something I was railing againt pre LU13 if you recall). Everyone was telling me it wasn't EQ1 where Templars are best healer -- so here we are. It's particularly bemusing that so many are now saying we -are- the best healer and that's why we shouldn't be balanced when the whole point of the priest balancing was to insure no priest was best healer. It's all so contradictory. </span>

Kendricke

11-03-2005, 12:49 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> It's particularly bemusing that so many are now saying we -are- the best healer and that's why we shouldn't be balanced when the whole point of the priest balancing was to insure no priest was best healer. It's all so contradictory.</SPAN><BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The biggest misperception being made on these boards in my opinion is represented here. The point of priest balancing was not to "insure that no priest was best healer", but rather to ensure that all priests could perform their primary function (read: healing) at a baseline level in a typical group situation. The developers have stated this. However, every time I attempt to point out the subtle, yet important difference between what is assumed and what was said, I'm told that I'm simply arguing semantics. Well, in this case, the semantics matter. </P> <P>Prior to the revamp, non-clerics simply could not perform their primary function in most group settings. There are dozens, nay hundreds of posts on non-cleric forums outlining this simple truth for nearly a year - going back beyond release into initial stages of beta. Druids and shamans simply could not keep up and were often relegated to backup or secondary healer spots. </P> <P>Now, the tables have shifted a bit. Templars are still healing better...but not AS better as before. So we're perceived to be weaker. It's the same reason 60 degrees feels cool in the summer, yet warm in the winter. It's a comparitive perception. We feel weaker. We're still stronger in healing than any other priest, and there are still unique situations where we're simply the only real choice, and yet still the argument is made by some that "now, priests are all equal" and "all healing is the same now".</P> <P>I can say that cows are purple with orange spots all day long...but it doesn't make it true. Likewise, simply repeating that "all healing is equal now" doesn't suddenly make that statement true, either. </P> <P>Don't take my word for it though. Join a group. Put Glory of Combat up on the two highest level melees in the group. Make sure to use Redoubt on your tank. Cast an Intercession before the pull. If you're facing multiple targets in each encounter, cast Atoning Fate as often as possible. Use Mark of Kings and/or an Involuntary heal if you're facing larger, single targets. Track the heals in your group. Do this a dozen times. Now challenge a druid or shaman to keep up with the healing you just performed over the same amount of time with the same group. See how much better or worse they are able to. </P> <P>Don't tell me we're healing for less. I've seen otherwise. </P> <P>Cows aren't purple with orange spots and all priests aren't healing equally.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

zorbdan

11-03-2005, 01:09 AM

on a scale of 1-10 where would you rate the three healing classes in 3 categories? <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> Healing Utility Damage</DIV> <DIV>Clerics - 10 2 2 </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Druids - 9 7 8 </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Shaman - 8 6 6</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>*Your milage may vary </DIV>

bigmak20

11-03-2005, 01:11 AM

OMG! I agree with Kendricke twice in the same day. You can construct any group or encounter to make any class in any archetype 'best'. That actually proves the point that it's all situational heal-wise -- AS IT SHOULD BE. <font size="1">(((( which brings us to ... why is there so much DPS disparity ALL THE TIME? .. lol ))))</font>

javis

11-03-2005, 02:22 AM

"Now, the tables have shifted a bit. Templars are still healing better...but not AS better as before. So we're perceived to be weaker" I have read many of your posts Kendricke and I respect you for always wanting to stay with facts and avoid generalizations because it does blur truths with opinions. I for one am glad to see the healing bumps for the other priest classes, it was needed. But let's make it clear there are no perceptions of being weaker, we <b>were</b> nerfed in LU13. Our group reactives were cut in half if not more. Now there may be a perception that we are weaker in relation to the other priest classes. I for one do not buy in to that, I still feel that in most situations we are still the most efficient and most effective at keeping our group alive. My point here is that we continue to glaze over the fact that were reduced in our healing capability in exchange for some oft used control spells (sarcasm.) We really gained nothing of worth. except maybe soothe (I like that spell for gathering) Our sight line has been altered in to a mez line. I used it much more often when it was an ae str debuff. I am fine with healing, I am still an excellent healer and the tools in our class are clearly still top dog in that regard. I do agree with Borekai that if they are to balance healing where in fact we were reduced and the others bumped then it would be logical to bump our dps in some form. -Izzy <div></div>

Sokolov

11-03-2005, 02:35 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>javis wrote:"Now, the tables have shifted a bit. Templars are still healing better...but not AS better as before. So we're perceived to be weaker" I have read many of your posts Kendricke and I respect you for always wanting to stay with facts and avoid generalizations because it does blur truths with opinions. I for one am glad to see the healing bumps for the other priest classes, it was needed. But let's make it clear there are no perceptions of being weaker, we <b>were</b> nerfed in LU13. Our group reactives were cut in half if not more. Now there may be a perception that we are weaker in relation to the other priest classes. I for one do not buy in to that, I still feel that in most situations we are still the most efficient and most effective at keeping our group alive. My point here is that we continue to glaze over the fact that were reduced in our healing capability in exchange for some oft used control spells (sarcasm.) We really gained nothing of worth. except maybe soothe (I like that spell for gathering) Our sight line has been altered in to a mez line. I used it much more often when it was an ae str debuff. I am fine with healing, I am still an excellent healer and the tools in our class are clearly still top dog in that regard. I do agree with Borekai that if they are to balance healing where in fact we were reduced and the others bumped then it would be logical to bump our dps in some form. -Izzy <div></div><hr></blockquote>I should note that Shaman wards were similiarily nerfed - altho they were also improved by taking mitigation into account but this was really a broken mechanic more than anything. As I understand it, Warden heals were likewise nerfed as well. I don't really see a point in discussing "what got nerfed" and "what was gained" when the whole system was revamped, it really has little relevance now and ultimately this is a relative issue between priest types, rather than one between nerf and pre-nerf.</span><div></div>

Kendricke

11-03-2005, 02:50 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> javis wrote:<BR>"Now, the tables have shifted a bit. Templars are still healing better...but not AS better as before. So we're perceived to be weaker"<BR><BR> I have read many of your posts Kendricke and I respect you for always wanting to stay with facts and avoid generalizations because it does blur truths with opinions. I for one am glad to see the healing bumps for the other priest classes, it was needed. But let's make it clear there are no perceptions of being weaker, we <B>were</B> nerfed in LU13. Our group reactives were cut in half if not more. Now there may be a perception that we are weaker in relation to the other priest classes. I for one do not buy in to that, I still feel that in most situations we are still the most efficient and most effective at keeping our group alive.<BR><BR> My point here is that we continue to glaze over the fact that were reduced in our healing capability in exchange for some oft used control spells (sarcasm.) We really gained nothing of worth. except maybe soothe (I like that spell for gathering) Our sight line has been altered in to a mez line. I used it much more often when it was an ae str debuff.<BR><BR> I am fine with healing, I am still an excellent healer and the tools in our class are clearly still top dog in that regard. I do agree with Borekai that if they are to balance healing where in fact we were reduced and the others bumped then it would be logical to bump our dps in some form.<BR><BR>-Izzy<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>In context, the quoted portion you chose to respond to was referencing our relative strength in comparison to other priests - not merely against themselves. I apologize if this was not readily apparant, and I'm happy for the opportunity to clarify the meaning for you. </P> <P>Even then, it's true that our heals were cut, but then so was the health of all creatures...and then the entire mitigation and defense system changed...and damage is calculated differently...and so forth. One can't look at one facet of a gem to determine it's true worth anymore than one can watch a single tree to see a forest. We did not have our healing reduced in a vaccuum, and I certainly do not believe that the reduction was in exchange for control spells. </P>

rtoub

11-03-2005, 02:55 AM

<P>You can't compare HP healed before vs HP healed now. Mitagation and avoidance have changed for players and mobs. HP have changed for mobs. Lots of things changed so the old numbers aren't valid in relationship to the new.</P> <P>If I had to guess, our numbers were reduced slightly and other classes were increased slightly, to bring all priest classes in line with each other.</P> <P>If anybody cares this is what I have noticed. Clerics heal mitigation tanks better than Shamans which heal avoidance tanks better than Clerics. Druids are about equal on both types of tanks. All three can peform the job of main healer and keep the group alive. I think this is what SOE wanted to accomplish.</P> <P>As far as DPS I kill about as fast as I did before. The only exception is with healer mobs. If they are high blue or above I have to drain the mob of power to kill it which takes a long time. Before they would burst out all there power healing at the start and then went down. Con means something now but after I adjust what I can kill now vs before, equally challenging mobs die just as fast as before.</P> <P>As far as Utility we have more than before. Buffs don't have to be recast, rezzes are better. Some timers are reduced. I can do everything I considered utility before and in most cases better.</P> <P>I think the problem is we were the best healers before. That was taken away from us so now we are looking for something in return. The other areas of play where we were deficent in before have come to light because we aren't the end all healers anymore.</P> <P>If anything needs to be changed, it is the little stuff. Increase dps a little. Increase utility healing a bit. There are several suggestions here on the boards for small changes that would make the class funner to play and not effect balence much. I do think though that other classes are completly broken and need help over ours. I am willing to wait a while for some templar love from SOE.</P>

javis

11-03-2005, 03:43 AM

So it is everyone's belief that we are just as effective as before DoF? If so, then I will politely disagree. I don't delve into numbers, although I love to see them. I am a feel player and I gravitate towards what is most effective. I don't look at logs, I witness it real time in my groups and raids. I have seen many posts that state because we are less effective that it has become more challenging and as a result more fun. I tend to agree, Although our 54 master 2 grand intercession has made it a ton easier. I was a great healer pre and I am still a great healer. I wasn't trying to harp on nerf but rather point out that while the posters make good points about heal vs relative hp's of mobs after revamp and healing isn't measured the same etc. the fact remains that we are less effective that we once were. I have seen many people post that they could cast a GI and CI and not really worry about any danger of the MT going down drastically. Does everyone dispute that? If not then my point is made. Whether or not we were overpowered in that regard is irrelevant. I personally am ok with the "revamp" and the healing levels across the priest classes. My point of contention has always been our DPS and if our effectiveness in healing was diminished then what was the return? I am not saying that they are "required" to do anything either. If the other priest classes are getting some love I wouldn't mind seeing some for us in the way of a bump in our DPS. I am also not comparing our healing to other classes because I support their increases and have never contested that. I just don't see why there is so much friction when someone asks for a bump in DPS for our class. Some say we are a healer we shouldn't want or ask for that and my response is then why are other priest classes enjoying an increased output. Class envy? perhaps a little but I am not asking for gobs of damage. Suggestions I have seen that make sense: More power for more damage 3 conc non taunting pet 1 conc self divine damage shield 1 conc self only proc (preferably divine damage) These would only further our ability to solo (mainly quests for me) and not make us any different in a group setting. I feel we are good to go in a group and raid. those are my thoughts, -Izzy <div></div>

javis

11-03-2005, 03:55 AM

Rtoub, nice post man, you summed it up nicely. I am also willing to forego changes for other classes that need more help. We are not broken by any means. -Izzy <div></div>

Timaarit

11-03-2005, 04:09 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> bigmak2010 wrote:<span> It's particularly bemusing that so many are now saying we -are- the best healer and that's why we shouldn't be balanced when the whole point of the priest balancing was to insure no priest was best healer. It's all so contradictory.</span> <hr> </blockquote> <p>The biggest misperception being made on these boards in my opinion is represented here. The point of priest balancing was not to "insure that no priest was best healer", but rather to ensure that all priests could perform their primary function (read: healing) at a baseline level in a typical group situation. The developers have stated this. However, every time I attempt to point out the subtle, yet important difference between what is assumed and what was said, I'm told that I'm simply arguing semantics. Well, in this case, the semantics matter. </p> <hr></blockquote>Good. This means there is no reason for you nor anyone else to object templar DPS being upped to the level other healers have. So why do you keep on trying to claim that what you posted above is why templars should have less DPS?</span><div></div>

SenorPhrog

11-03-2005, 07:11 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> rtoub wrote:<BR> <P>You can't compare HP healed before vs HP healed now. Mitagation and avoidance have changed for players and mobs. HP have changed for mobs. Lots of things changed so the old numbers aren't valid in relationship to the new.</P> <P>If I had to guess, our numbers were reduced slightly and other classes were increased slightly, to bring all priest classes in line with each other.</P> <P>If anybody cares this is what I have noticed. Clerics heal mitigation tanks better than Shamans which heal avoidance tanks better than Clerics. Druids are about equal on both types of tanks. All three can peform the job of main healer and keep the group alive. I think this is what SOE wanted to accomplish.</P> <P>As far as DPS I kill about as fast as I did before. The only exception is with healer mobs. If they are high blue or above I have to drain the mob of power to kill it which takes a long time. Before they would burst out all there power healing at the start and then went down. Con means something now but after I adjust what I can kill now vs before, equally challenging mobs die just as fast as before.</P> <P>As far as Utility we have more than before. Buffs don't have to be recast, rezzes are better. Some timers are reduced. I can do everything I considered utility before and in most cases better.</P> <P>I think the problem is we were the best healers before. That was taken away from us so now we are looking for something in return. The other areas of play where we were deficent in before have come to light because we aren't the end all healers anymore.</P> <P>If anything needs to be changed, it is the little stuff. Increase dps a little. Increase utility healing a bit. There are several suggestions here on the boards for small changes that would make the class funner to play and not effect balence much. I do think though that other classes are completly broken and need help over ours. I am willing to wait a while for some templar love from SOE.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Very nicely put and one of the best posts I've seen in here since LU#13. Not belligerent or arrogant. Just explaining your opinion and why and politely recommending suggestions but being patient about it.

Kiara-

11-03-2005, 08:25 PM

<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Happily there seems to be more discussion in this thread than flaming, which is refreshing.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>I have to agree with several posts here. I don't think it's that we've lost so much, but that what others have gained is so visible. And frankly, they needed it. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>I understand the feeling of being nerfed, but the facts are, that (to repeat) mob and player HP's have been altered as well. So has mob damage and player mitigation. Changes were made across the board to bring things as in line as possible with each other. This being the case, you have to look at the whole picture. Not were we nerfed in this once sense, but over all the changes taking ALL things into consideration can we still perform our functions as well as and slightly better than the other healers? And the answer is yes.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>I also understand the feeling that well gee they have better healing now (for them, not better than us) and they still have cool debuffs and dps etc etc. The thing is, we never had that. Yes we have some pretty good utility spells. Those haven't been taken away. But you can't realistically expect to have everything that the other two healing classes have AND heal more effciently AND be able to take more hits in a combat situation should you pull aggro. It's like asking to be uber healer ruler of the universe.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Asking for small concessions in our existing spell lines does however, seem reasonable. A faster refresh on our stun, or a slightly lowered rate of interrupts (cause man those are killer). </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>I think that as time goes on and emotions settle a little and logic starts to take over we'll see more and more reasonable solutions to our problems. But once again, we're not broken. We may not be right where everyone thinks we should be, but that will take time to hash out and settle. Til then, there are classes that ARE broken and need some work. So rather than requiring immediate attention when we can't agree on what we think the class should have, let's spend our time getting all on the same page so we can present a united front with reasonable and beneficial (although not outrageous) suggestions.</FONT></DIV>

Noom

11-03-2005, 08:44 PM

<P>Lvl 44 Templar here. Im satisfied with my healing and my buffs.</P> <P>I think a Damage shield (self buffed only) would make a lot of templars satisfied</P> <P>and it would not unbalance the game at all.</P> <P> </P>

BenEm

11-03-2005, 10:13 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Antryg Mistrose wrote:<BR><FONT color=#ffff00> D</FONT><FONT color=#ffff00><FONT color=#ffff00>O </FONT>templars/inquisitors heal better than the other priest archtypes or not?</FONT> <BR><BR>Hopefully not - this was one of the major driving forces behind the whole combat revamp - if you read Sony's own announcements.<BR><BR>So Sony's stated intention is not.<BR>There are players who perhaps because of the name 'cleric' and their ex eq1 background claim they should be.<BR><BR>My opinion is generally yes, but it's no longer head and shoulders above other types.<BR>Due to the MT normally being a mitigation rather than avoidance fighter, and the type of mobs predominantly fought,<BR>reactive heals, even in their much reduced post LU13 state, still generally outweigh the advantages of other<BR>priest classes' speciality heals. A Shamen's ward looks theoretically to be the best possible type of "healing" now,<BR>but as I don't play one, its hard to judge, and given how long they were broken for, there aren't yet a whole lot of them about.<BR><BR>The direct heals look to be where more of a balancing has gone on, with power cost, cast and recast timers all fiddled<BR>with so as to be roughly equal. But as power pools are not equal across classes, players, or levels thats a bit subjective too.<BR><BR>Yet another factor why there is no clear answer is the level of priests - comparing between priest classes will favour<BR>whoever just got a spell upgraded, as it will be 14 odd levels better than the one it replaced.<BR><BR>A lot of the angst here, is about how many abilities were taken away from Templars in order to more balance them<BR>against the other priest classes. This would cause negative feelings no matter how well it was handled, and in my opinion,<BR>it was handled about as bad as is possible.<BR><BR>With priests being more equal, the non-healing differences become more obvious, and as Templars are no longer THE healer <BR>soling ability also becomes more important. Something that even the most vociferous templar supporters aggree we don't do so fast.<BR>DPS is only relevant to soloing or very small groups, or against easy content, as no priest has the power or casting time to worry about dps in challenging content. Raid content has it's own rules, where you must debuff now, even if this interrupts heals, but there are generally enough priests along on a raid that this can be coordinated. In groups, most content dies so fast that debuffs have marginal benefit at best.<BR><BR>The final complication in healing, is who gets interrupted more - not relevant in groups, but VERY important soloing.<BR>A heaving armour wearing, non-agile cleric seems to be at a disadvantage there, and having a small health pool doesn't help much either.<BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This guy has it right ....and your always better off listening to the Dev's and what they are trying to accomplish verses folk like Kendrick who just wont accept what the Devs have to say about they game they made and what they intend to do with it . </P> <P>I have a 42 Lev Templar thats a 53rd Lev Armorer ...hehe silly me I thought I would be both nice and smart to be an armorer but little did I know I would be better off not in Heavy Armor. </P> <P>Right now I am leveling up a Fury and can tell you hands down they are much easier to heal a party with ..they dont have more healing power its just a much more laid back job and I get to do some DPS and kill that MoB faster so I dont need the extra 10% healing some claim we have. Quite frankly it is Fun to be able to keep a group healed and get the kill <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Again all you get here is opinions and we know what opinions are like dont we <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Your best to read what the Devs says and make up your own choice based on what you think will be more fun . My opinion is this I am having a lot more fun with a 23rd Lev Fury than I am with a 42nd lev Templar ... dont get me wrong still love my Temp but for now he is relegating to Armoring . Than Again you also have to keep in mind the tweaks will continue and I for one know my opinion can change after any given update . <BR></P>

Vylo

11-03-2005, 10:14 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Noom wrote:<BR> <P>Lvl 44 Templar here. Im satisfied with my healing and my buffs.</P> <P>I think a Damage shield (self buffed only) would make a lot of templars satisfied</P> <P>and it would not unbalance the game at all.</P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>ooo now THAT is a good idea <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> druids have one... kinda makes sense <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Sokolov

11-03-2005, 10:20 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Vylora wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Noom wrote: <p>Lvl 44 Templar here. Im satisfied with my healing and my buffs.</p> <p>I think a Damage shield (self buffed only) would make a lot of templars satisfied</p> <p>and it would not unbalance the game at all.</p> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>ooo now THAT is a good idea <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> druids have one... kinda makes sense <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div><hr></blockquote> I always felt that cleric heals should be reversible as damage. Balance issues aside, it's a cool game mechanic, I'd think.</span><div></div>

Maeia

11-04-2005, 09:40 PM

<DIV>This is my first post and I am only posting due to sheer desperation. To let you all know, my main character is a level 51 Templar.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok, I think one of the biggest things tha most people have forgotten is that some people don't like to group. Therefore, SOE specifically stated that all classes will be able to solo. But what does solo mean? Does it mean that you can kill a mob by yourself, or does it mean that you can kill a mob effectively? I think the effectiveness is the biggest problem in this game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here is a little bit from a parse of a group of three players. Granted, the levels are not equal but the outcome is just ludicrous. The three of us were in Sinking Sands killing the Sirens on the rock out by the docks. Oh and btw, very little healing needed to be done because the mobs went down so fast.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Me - 51 Templar DPS - 1587</DIV> <DIV>Kal - 53 Templar DPS - 1965</DIV> <DIV>Ere - 55 Conjuror DPS - 11058</DIV> <DIV>Ere's Pet - DPS - 9786</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok, lets look at the capabilities over 100 mobs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Me - DPS - 158,700</DIV> <DIV>Kal - DPS - 196,500</DIV> <DIV>Combined Ere and Pet DPS - 2,084,400</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In other words, it will take a Templar <FONT color=#ffff00>10 minutes</FONT> to kill a mob while it takes a Conjuror <FONT color=#ffff00>1 minute</FONT> to kill the same mob. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That being said, how long will it take a Templar to level? Ten times as long as a Conjuror. But it doesn't end there. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have a friend who was a level 26 Wizard while I was a level 46 Templar. All in all, I think that I should be able to take a level 26 mob down without even thinking about it. Unfortunately, while I was playing with him we did a comparison. He killed and I both killed a level 26^ mob at the same time. I was using my Adept 3 spells as always. It took me about a half a second longer to kill the mob than it took him. Should a level 26 Wizard be able to outperform any level 46 Class?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In case you are thinking that I must not know my class very well, let me put it this way, BEFORE the combat revamp, I was able to kill the <STRONG>very difficult</STRONG> pit champion in the Arena. How many other Templars could do that? Yes, I know my class very well, I experiment constantly trying to figure out knew and better ways of getting things done.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The Bottom Line is this, While we may be able to heal a little better than others, soloing is not a way to level even though SOE promised us to be able to. I for one am not happy about the blatant disregard of the equality of the gaming experience.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

SenorPhrog

11-05-2005, 01:03 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Maeia wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The Bottom Line is this, While we may be able to heal a little better than others, soloing is not a way to level even though SOE promised us to be able to. I for one am not happy about the blatant disregard of the equality of the gaming experience.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>You need to check your quotes. SOE stated that every class will have the ability to solo. At no point have I ever seen them say that classes will solo equally. Feel free to find it and prove me wrong because I would love to be wrong about that.<BR>

Vylo

11-05-2005, 02:11 AM

<DIV>the ability to solo IS there... but that is NOT how the game is intended to be played... it is a multi player game... </DIV>

Jida

11-05-2005, 02:25 AM

<P><SPAN>A MMO Game implies interaction with other people. In eq2 it does not require for u to group with other people. Every class can solo. The biggest debate currently in the templar community is the efficiency of soloing compared to other Priest classes.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>Elder</SPAN></P> <P> </P>

Vylo

11-05-2005, 02:51 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jida wrote:<BR> <P><SPAN>A MMO Game implies interaction with other people. In eq2 it does not require for u to group with other people. Every class can solo. The biggest debate currently in the templar community is the efficiency of soloing compared to other Priest classes.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Elder</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>no, it doesnt REQUIRE you to group, and you are totally right you dont HAVE to group... it IS however recommended. and they do state that for some content/items etc. you HAVE to have a group, plain and simple.</DIV>

Maeia

11-05-2005, 03:27 AM

"You need to check your quotes. SOE stated that every class will have the ability to solo. At no point have I ever seen them say that classes will solo equally. Feel free to find it and prove me wrong because I would love to be wrong about that." <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>NO DUH!!! Why do you think I first posted:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But what does solo mean? Does it mean that you can kill a mob by yourself, or does it mean that you can kill a mob effectively?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Telling the general public that every class will have the ability to solo gives the impression that they will be able to do it well. They do not say, "Yeah, you CAN do it but if you do you WILL be sorry." That is what they should have said as a warning message to those who like to play the game solo. And yes, some mobs take grouping and that is all well and good, but why dwell on the symantics of those type of mobs. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Instead, answer the question of why a level 26 Wizard has more power than a level 46 Templar, which you so conviently ignored to begin with. And if you wanna say that I can't play my class well, see the above post and don't even begin to go there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>I see your name on a thread and I cringe...and you know who you are. - AHEM</FONT></DIV>

Kendricke

11-05-2005, 04:03 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Maeia wrote:<BR> <DIV>Instead, answer the question of why a level 26 Wizard has more power than a level 46 Templar, which you so conviently ignored to begin with. And if you wanna say that I can't play my class well, see the above post and don't even begin to go there. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'd love to see that 26 Wizard solo a level 46 Plated Digger faster than a level 46 Templar. :smileywink:</P> <P>As far as what the developers have stated regarding soloing, how's this:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV align=left> <HR> Moorgard: August 8, 2005:</DIV> <DIV align=left> </DIV> <DIV align=left><EM>However, there will certainly be players who can solo heroic encounters. It's just not going to be a guarantee of success like it is now in the live game.</EM></DIV> <DIV align=left><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV align=left><EM>Gear, spell upgrades, and tactics will play a *much* larger role in one's ability to take on a heroic encounter. And yes, since each class has slightly different abilities, I don't doubt that there will be some classes that find it easier in general to do so. There is no way that classes in an MMO will ever be balanced enough to make it otherwise.</EM></DIV> <DIV align=left><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV align=left><EM>So yes, soloing heroics will be possible after the revamp, but it won't be as trivial as it is today. Please spread the word to those who think we are out to destroy the fun of soloers, because we definitely aren't.</EM></DIV> <DIV align=left> </DIV> <DIV align=left> <HR> <BR>Moorgard, September 13, 2005:</DIV> <DIV align=left> </DIV> <DIV align=left><EM>That said, soloing isn't meant to necessarily be equally efficient for everyone. Just as some classes have a lot of benefits they bring to a group, some classes have ablilites that work exceptionally well for soloing. But we've worked hard to ensure that everyone can solo if they chose to do so.</EM></DIV> <DIV align=left><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV align=left> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR></P>

Maeia

11-05-2005, 04:18 AM

<P><EM>"There is no way that classes in an MMO will ever be balanced enough to make it otherwise..... But we've worked hard to ensure that everyone can solo if they chose to do so."</EM></P> <P><EM></EM> </P> <P><EM>It is obvious that they are not going to be balanced. If you double the amunt of DPS a Templar does he/she will still not get close to the damage that other classes do. Heck, if you quadruple it, you might start to get close so I doubt that their "working hard" to make it so that all classes can solo is very accurate.</EM></P> <P>I can probably move Mt. Everest by myself with a shovel and a pick if you give me good health for 10,000 years but I would rather be able to do it in 100 years with dynamite and a bull dozer instead. I'm not asking for an atomic bomb to do it in one fell swoop.</P>

Kendricke

11-05-2005, 05:03 AM

<P>Not all classes solo as well as others, just as some classes are more necessary for groups to properly function than others. Do NOT play a Templar expecting to solo as well as other classes. This has NEVER been a soloing class. </P> <P> </P>

Gcha

11-05-2005, 06:43 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>Not all classes solo as well as others, just as some classes are more necessary for groups to properly function than others. Do NOT play a Templar expecting to solo as well as other classes. This has NEVER been a soloing class. </P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I have never yet seen one person here ask to solo "as well as other classes". Please, let's not build strawmen to attack. These folks are asking to solo a bit less more poorly than other classes than they currently do. Let's address THAT topic.</DIV>

Rhona

11-05-2005, 07:41 AM

<font size="3">I don't necessarily want to admit to blatant stupidity, but I didn't buy the game and start a Templar on August 08 or September 13, 2005. That happened in 2004. I accept that the game will change over time, and I am happy that the folks in this forum appear to be working to achieve some changes to improve the solo ability of Templars, but let's also recognize that some people have had different expectations, and are telling their feelings honestly. As a "casual player" of long standing (six years in Everquest to reach 54 and currently my one and only EQ2 'toon is 31), I don't really have the freedom to start a new character and reach the same level in under a week, like some people, so I'll be staying with my Templar. I chose the Cleric/Templar path with joy, happily expecting to experience much (not all) of the game as a casual (often solo; hard to find a group when you ofteh have less than an hour to play) player, a path that was not even remotely possible in the original EQ as a Cleric, but still able to take care of a group when lucky enough to get one. Well, I can still take care of a group. Quite well, imho. Maybe it's just that 31 is a terrible level, and the light is only a few weeks away, but it's been rather a chore having fun making progress on quests and gaining content-based experience of late. I've seen suggestions that might well help restore my fun factor, things like a multiple concentration self-only DoT, and I hope at least some of them are approved. If I weren't so intent on seeing/doing as much content/quests as possible, I could park on the chessboard or in Ruined Karanas and repeatedly rote-kill green undead with no challenge at all. Or even kill yellow or orange crab after crab and shark after shark and ray after ray in the Enchanted Lands. But that's not fun for me. So I'd just like to applaud those folks who believe that there is room for an enhancement to Templar DPS, at least outside of the end-game-raid super-highbie arena, and put in my two copper to support them. Sincerely, Rho </font><div></div>

SenorPhrog

11-05-2005, 10:43 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Maeia wrote:<BR>"You need to check your quotes. SOE stated that every class will have the ability to solo. At no point have I ever seen them say that classes will solo equally. Feel free to find it and prove me wrong because I would love to be wrong about that." <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>NO DUH!!! Why do you think I first posted:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But what does solo mean? Does it mean that you can kill a mob by yourself, or does it mean that you can kill a mob effectively?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Telling the general public that every class will have the ability to solo gives the impression that they will be able to do it well. They do not say, "Yeah, you CAN do it but if you do you WILL be sorry." That is what they should have said as a warning message to those who like to play the game solo. And yes, some mobs take grouping and that is all well and good, but why dwell on the symantics of those type of mobs. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Instead, answer the question of why a level 26 Wizard has more power than a level 46 Templar, which you so conviently ignored to begin with. And if you wanna say that I can't play my class well, see the above post and don't even begin to go there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>I see your name on a thread and I cringe...and you know who you are. - AHEM</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>What does solo mean? It means the ability to kill mobs by yourself. Effectively is subjective to the person making the judgement. If you think them saying every class has the ability to solo and gave the impression that they will all be able to do it well then you made and assumption. You know what they say about those right? A warning about soloing? Sure they should do that. They could also put a boredom warning on it in case people don't know you have to camp certain mobs for a long time. In fact they should extend that warning since some of us find tradeskilling boring too.... I think you are on to something.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What does a Wizard at lvl 26 have to do with a 46 Templar? I don't give a crap about power since I rarely run out of it. And I don't want to say you can't play your class well but I do want to say you probably needed to learn more about the game if you wanted to play solo. There are other classes that would have been less frustrating for you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Glad you noticed my sig.</DIV>

Maeia

11-05-2005, 11:14 AM

<P><EM>"What does a Wizard at lvl 26 have to do with a 46 Templar? I don't give a crap about power since I rarely run out of it."</EM></P> <P>UMMM Radar, I think you need to think about what you are saying and read the post before <STRONG>you</STRONG> make assumptions. Did my post have anything to do with the amount of mana/power or did it have something to do with the POWER as in amount of damage power? Please, for once, look at what is being said and don't try to be all negative on me.</P> <P><EM>"I do want to say you probably needed to learn more about the game if you wanted to play solo. There are other classes that would have been less frustrating for you."</EM></P> <P>Let me ask you how intelligent that statement is? Did I have any clue whatsoever on day one when they opened the game if SOE was going to make cambat changes of this magnitude? Did I even know that their version of soloing would be to give me a spoon and say "ok, go dig your way to china, it will be real slow but in the end you will get there if you persist"? What kind of idiocy is that? Yeah it is real effective because we say it is. Is that what you call subjective? </P> <DIV><EM>"There are other classes that would have been less frustrating for you."</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV>You are absolutely right but I didn't have a chance to sit down and before the game was opened with all the developers and ask them which classes they were going to nerf. Did you? On the other hand, Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this supposed to be a fun game? If you had developed a game in which there are tons of complaints about something that obviously went wrong, wouldn't you want to correct it so that it could continue being fun? Where is the psychology of ignoring the cries of a supposed important class in the game? Playing the game is supposed to be fun and challenging at the same time. Watching a level 24 Wizard out do a 46 Templar only breeds contempt. It does not inspire in any way shape or form.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Are you beginning to understand in even the slightest bit what I am trying to say? This is supposed to be fun, it is not supposed to breed ill will. At the present time it is far from fun. That is where SOE goofed and needs to correct it.</DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV>

Kiara-

11-05-2005, 11:30 AM

<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Actually, templars haven't soloed very quickly since even before LU13. It took a million years to solo as a templar. And just cause we CAN solo doesn't mean we can solo as well as say... necros. Just the way it is. But we CAN solo. If you have a problem with how long it takes, pick a faster soloing class.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Radar just told you the exact same thing. I'm sorry if it isn't what you want to hear, but it doesn't change that that's how it is.</FONT></DIV>

SenorPhrog

11-05-2005, 11:46 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Maeia wrote:<BR> <P><EM>"What does a Wizard at lvl 26 have to do with a 46 Templar? I don't give a crap about power since I rarely run out of it."</EM></P> <P>UMMM Radar, I think you need to think about what you are saying and read the post before <STRONG>you</STRONG> make assumptions. Did my post have anything to do with the amount of mana/power or did it have something to do with the POWER as in amount of damage power? Please, for once, look at what is being said and don't try to be all negative on me.</P> <P><EM>"I do want to say you probably needed to learn more about the game if you wanted to play solo. There are other classes that would have been less frustrating for you."</EM></P> <P>Let me ask you how intelligent that statement is? Did I have any clue whatsoever on day one when they opened the game if SOE was going to make cambat changes of this magnitude? Did I even know that their version of soloing would be to give me a spoon and say "ok, go dig your way to china, it will be real slow but in the end you will get there if you persist"? What kind of idiocy is that? Yeah it is real effective because we say it is. Is that what you call subjective? </P> <DIV><EM>"There are other classes that would have been less frustrating for you."</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV>You are absolutely right but I didn't have a chance to sit down and before the game was opened with all the developers and ask them which classes they were going to nerf. Did you? On the other hand, Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this supposed to be a fun game? If you had developed a game in which there are tons of complaints about something that obviously went wrong, wouldn't you want to correct it so that it could continue being fun? Where is the psychology of ignoring the cries of a supposed important class in the game? Playing the game is supposed to be fun and challenging at the same time. Watching a level 24 Wizard out do a 46 Templar only breeds contempt. It does not inspire in any way shape or form.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Are you beginning to understand in even the slightest bit what I am trying to say? This is supposed to be fun, it is not supposed to breed ill will. At the present time it is far from fun. That is where SOE goofed and needs to correct it.</DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Your EXACT question in the last post I responded to asked me to explain why a level 26 Wizard has more power than a 46 Templar. I had 3 other people read this and they read it exactly like I did so it wasn't me that communicated the idea this way. You want me to answer that question? Who cares. I'm not a Wizard. When that same Wizard is dropped in 2 shots I'll still be alive. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for your soloing arguement? You're being ridiculous. Are you JUST coming to the conclusion that we don't solo as well as other classes? Have you been playing a Templar long? I don't see how we solo any worse than we did pre-LU#13 although I think we may still be getting interrupted more.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I still have fun with my Templar and solo so I'm guessing maybe thats a little more subjective what about you? A lvl 24 Wizard out do a 46 Templar? Really? I'd be impressed to see a 24 Wizard go up against a 47 or 48 mob and see how they do. Please parse that for me. It shouldn't take long. I've got a basket of apples and oranges I need you to compare when you are done.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm sorry you feel its "not fun" but I have to disagree. Now nobody is going to say we don't need a little work and could use some tweaks but the Chicken Little routine is tired. SOE fixed something that was broken and needs to tweak up a few more things. It doesn't get any more complicated.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Gcha

11-05-2005, 11:52 AM

<DIV><post editted by Gchang =) .... anything that needed to be discussed in there has been discussing so leaving this serves no purpose></DIV><p>Message Edited by Gchang on <span class=date_text>11-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:05 PM</span>

Kiara-

11-05-2005, 12:52 PM

<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Just because someone doesn't agree with you and insists on being reasonable and pointing out facts, does not make them condescending or on the payroll.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Emotions are high right now, and that's causing people to think with their feelings rather than their grey matter.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Chill out, have some cheese.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Things will be sorted out in the end and they actually ARE paying attention to what's being said here. They'd likely pay MORE attention if there were ... oh I don't know... reasonable arguments rather than impassioned flame fests accusing people of being on SOE's payroll cause they aren't cowtowing to you and kissing your hiney cause you're upset that you missed nappies and need your binkie.</FONT></DIV>

SenorPhrog

11-05-2005, 01:03 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR> <FONT color=#99ff00>You know, Radar, in general your posts don't bother me. In this case, however, you've achieved a level of condescension and patroninzing BS that boggles the mind. If you and one or two other people around here are not on the SOE payroll, then I wish you would explain to me what your agenda is in perpetually trying to belittle and demean each and every person who tries to express ANY criticism.<BR></FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>What does solo mean? It means the ability to kill mobs by yourself. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00>Thank you ever so much for achieving a heretofore unheard-of level of condescension in explaining to all us ignoramuses what "solo" means.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>Effectively is subjective to the person making the judgement. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00>Again, we bow to your superior understanding of gaming.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>If you think them saying every class has the ability to solo and gave the impression that they will all be able to do it well then you made and assumption. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00>Nope, we didn't. SOE said it. Yes, as Kendricke (and you) like to remind all us ignorant fools daily, if not more frequently, they didn't say "equally" (as if anyone ever claimed they did), but they DID say every class would be able to solo, and, in saying that, it is presumed that they meant every class would be able to solo REASONABLY well. Surely they didn't try to mislead people by playing on words ... did they?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You know what they say about those right? A warning about soloing? Sure they should do that. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00>WHY should they do that? Has something changed since the early propaganda on EQ2? Is this or is it not the game which, unlike EQ1, is geared to soloing and small grouping? Or, did I miss a meeting.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They could also put a boredom warning on it in case people don't know you have to camp certain mobs for a long time. In fact they should extend that warning since some of us find tradeskilling boring too.... I think you are on to something.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00>Huh? </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What does a Wizard at lvl 26 have to do with a 46 Templar? I don't give a crap about power since I rarely run out of it. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00>Bully for you. Now, getting back to our regular programming, with all due appreciation for you sharing that with us .... from the perspective of us inferior beings IT HAS TO DO WITH A TOON 20 LEVELS BELOW ANOTHER TOON HAVING SUPERIORITY ON A MOB ... *** ANY *** MOB. Are you really going to sit here and claim to not understand this?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And I don't want to say you can't play your class well but I do want to say you probably needed to learn more about the game if you wanted to play solo. There are other classes that would have been less frustrating for you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00>Well, now, we've gotten to the crux of it, haven't we. If somebody isn't happy, it must because they can't play as well as you. Once again, we bow to your superior ability, but, unfortunately, us ordinary mortals must continue to try to muddle along in our pathetic mediocrity. We'd kinda still like to play and enjoy the game. Is that okay?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Glad you noticed my sig.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#99ff00>Sheesh. You know guys, if you have an agenda to push, as you obviously do, let's try to do it less pathetically. kkthx</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#99ff00></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#99ff00>Knock yourself out deleting me, Raijin. My patience is wearing thin here. Either this is a discussion forum or it's a captive lecture circuit for two, er, uh ... well, I will withhold my adjectives here, lol.<BR></FONT></P> <P>Message Edited by Gchang on <SPAN class=date_text>11-04-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:55 PM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Gchang on <SPAN class=date_text>11-04-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:00 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>You know what? I got condescension and thats exactly how I responded. It must be nice to always be able to take the high road Gchang which I'm sure you always do (such as this post here). Did you actually even read his post or just start responding to mine? He asked what soloing meant and I explained what my definition of it is. If you got a better definition lets hear it and stop wasting our time with what you think about what I posted. </P> <P>I know full well probably 95% of the people who read these threads couldn't give two craps what I think and you know what? I could care less. You have your opinion and I have mine. I've actually gone out of my way to tone down how I respond so I don't lumped in with "the others" and have even conceded there are issues that could use a little attention but I dont' guess you remember any of that.</P> <P>As for being on SOE's payroll? Don't you wish you were the first person to accuse me of that. Yes SOE must pay me to sit around and belittle people to further their....hmmm now what exactly are they furthering again? You haven't even seen a FRACTION of what I can say because this isn't NGD and there is a wider tolerance for whining. I bite my tongue in here at least 20 times a day.</P> <P>I respect a lot of your posts Gchang because you aren't ridiculous and unreasonable normally but today is different apparently. I can lower myself to this because of where I normally post but coming from you Gchang this is disappointing. </P> <P>I have no agenda. I guess if I did have one its being tied to my low tolerance for cyring,moaning,and foolishness so yeah I guess thats about it.</P> <P>Raijin feel free to take this one out too if I crossed a line here. </P>

Gcha

11-05-2005, 01:09 PM

<DIV>NP, want to see me take the low road, watch the next one =)</DIV>

Gcha

11-05-2005, 01:10 PM

<P>**REMOVED PERSONAL ATTACKS**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:01 AM</span>

Gcha

11-05-2005, 01:10 PM

<DIV>Nite all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Huggies =)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Maeia

11-05-2005, 01:23 PM

<P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>"Emotions are high right now, and that's causing people to think with their feelings rather than their grey matter."</FONT></P> <P>THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!!</P> <P>You just succeeded in making my point Kiara. Why should a game that is supposed to be fun cause soooooooo much high negative emotions? The game is supposed to be fun, not frustrating. THAT is exactly how SOE screwed up this time.</P> <P> </P> <P>BTW Radar, I am a level 51 Templar who has spent 95% of the time soloing and doing tons of quests. (868 to date) Yes, questing is the absolute best way for a Templar to gain expience outside of grouping. I have also seen more content than most people because of all these quests. I don't go out grinding just to get exp. How totally dull and boring would that be? Most of the time I would prefer to group if I could find a decent group who would not fight all the time; but guess what, I read posts like yours and I realize that I am wishing on a star for that to happen very often. </P> <P> </P>

SenorPhrog

11-05-2005, 01:43 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kiara wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Just because someone doesn't agree with you and insists on being reasonable and pointing out facts, does not make them condescending or on the payroll.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Emotions are high right now, and that's causing people to think with their feelings rather than their grey matter.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Chill out, have some cheese.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Things will be sorted out in the end and they actually ARE paying attention to what's being said here. They'd likely pay MORE attention if there were ... oh I don't know... reasonable arguments rather than impassioned flame fests accusing people of being on SOE's payroll cause they aren't cowtowing to you and kissing your hiney cause you're upset that you missed nappies and need your binkie.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Practice at home a bit more. I ain't got time for second class material. Cutesy purple fonts don't compensate for lack of content. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Thats it? You made fun of her font? What do you have up your sleeve next? You going to correct her grammar?

SenorPhrog

11-05-2005, 01:47 PM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Maeia wrote:<BR> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>"Emotions are high right now, and that's causing people to think with their feelings rather than their grey matter."</FONT></P> <P>THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!!</P> <P>You just succeeded in making my point Kiara. Why should a game that is supposed to be fun cause soooooooo much high negative emotions? The game is supposed to be fun, not frustrating. THAT is exactly how SOE screwed up this time.</P> <P> </P> <P>BTW Radar, I am a level 51 Templar who has spent 95% of the time soloing and doing tons of quests. (868 to date) Yes, questing is the absolute best way for a Templar to gain expience outside of grouping. I have also seen more content than most people because of all these quests. I don't go out grinding just to get exp. How totally dull and boring would that be? Most of the time I would prefer to group if I could find a decent group who would not fight all the time; but guess what, I read posts like yours and I realize that I am wishing on a star for that to happen very often. </P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm glad for you man. You know what? I'm a level 51 Templar who spends most of his time soloing too. Small world huh? I hate grinding and you are absolutely right quests are the way to go. I almost never find groups outside my guild. I usually duo with someone. If you don't have that I'm sorry for you.</DIV>

Kayle

11-05-2005, 05:00 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kiara wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Just because someone doesn't agree with you and insists on being reasonable and pointing out facts, does not make them condescending or on the payroll.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Emotions are high right now, and that's causing people to think with their feelings rather than their grey matter.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Chill out, have some cheese.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Things will be sorted out in the end and they actually ARE paying attention to what's being said here. They'd likely pay MORE attention if there were ... oh I don't know... reasonable arguments rather than impassioned flame fests accusing people of being on SOE's payroll cause they aren't cowtowing to you and kissing your hiney cause you're upset that you missed nappies and need your binkie.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>But just prior to that, Kiara wrote: "Happily there seems to be more discussion in this thread than flaming, which is refreshing.</P> <P>This is the problem with this forum. Your little group is running around scolding people like some parental authority and then praising them when they say and act in the manner you approve of. But the second someone disagrees with you and scolds YOU for being childish or berating, the shoe is on the other foot and you lash out and take offense in the worst way.</P> <P>Why is it okay for some of you to demean others and act like authorities in here but when it's retaliated back to you, in the same manner you've just spoken to them, you run to Raijinn to get it wiped away? Is it because you want people to read your scolding of others but you find it unacceptable and beneath you to have the favor returned? Or is it because you are taking advantage of Raijinn, knowing he can only read the post being complained about and doesn't see what YOU wrote before that because you know he doesn't have the time?</P> <P>This is not a communist country here. You can't appoint yourselves dictators and line up the opposing view for a firing squad to eliminate them.</P> <P>Don't USE Raijinn and point to the rules when you've broken them yourselves with your condescending attitudes. It's also in the rules, back as far as Faarwolf, that you're not allowed to follow people around, post to post, and harass them. Yet I found a certain poster here doing just that. A post buried so far down in the Guild forum yet he dug it out for no other purpose but to annoy because I was in it. How sick does it get? Why aren't you saying anything to him and you KNOW who I'm referring to.</P> <P>The changes to templars were asked for by a few persistant people because we actually believed there was a problem that needed attention. It is UNBELIEVABLE to me that our own class fought with us NOT to get them done, citing there was no problem at all other then we didn't know how to play our class. Every single statement was met with demands to "prove it" or shut up. That's for a developer or coder to say, not any of you. The fact of the matter is, you're not privy to the formulas used in calculating the balance of heals or the variables of the targets used upon them. You are only able to get a SENSE of what they are, but to ask for solid facts is pathetic because no one knows them but the coder himself. If you knew anything about programming at all and the complexity that exists within EQ2, you would know not to demand such answers from the end-user. There is NO parse that is going to be exactly the same no matter how much you demand them. I've done hundreds of them and no two are alike, but they do get a sense of the problem and I've sent them in. I don't need YOU to determine if they're worthy of attention. That's a dev's job!</P> <P>Raijinn posted about 2 weeks ago, saying he would take the concerns back to SoE and for that I appreciate it. That's all we were asking for. We did not ask to come in here and have to put up with this nonsense.</P> <P>What has been proven in this thread, is that some of you can dish it out, but you can't take it. It also proves you now want credit for something you fought AGAINST! If it wasn't for some of you, these changes could have been made a long time ago. But please don't act like you wanted them done because I can pull out dozens of threads where you chastised people for asking for them in the first place and beat the dead horse into dog food over it. Is there any end to your egos?</P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And now that it's on TEST, you should be thanking those persistant people. Yet here you are again, beating the next person with their perspective of how the changes feel to her.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This only proves one thing. You want some sick domination of these boards. Well let me tell you something. You do NOT pay anymore then the rest of us do here. You are therefore abusing these boards by bullying people around, inviting your friends and girlfriends just to have a voice in numbers and intimidate the poster. You are also ruining SoE's business by frustrating many to the point where they do not enjoy these forums any longer and carry that attitude over into the game and eventually just quit. You are to blame for that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The changes are being developed. If YOU don't like them, I suggest YOU go make another class. How does that make you feel?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I now have to make another forum, privately invite those who can speak to the issue and take those issues back to the developers via another avenue. And why? Because of the high and mighty attitudes here. Well get over yourselves already. The changes are coming and not because you were so right, but because you were so wrong. They obviously didn't agree with Kendricke & Co.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yeah, yeah, Raijinn. You can delete it now. I already posted this elsewhere and in /feedback.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Kaylena on <span class=date_text>11-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:17 AM</span>

Kayle

11-05-2005, 06:09 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Maeia wrote:<BR> <P> I don't go out grinding just to get exp. How totally dull and boring would that be? Most of the time I would prefer to group if I could find a decent group who would not fight all the time; but guess what, I read posts like yours and I realize that I am wishing on a star for that to happen very often. </P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Most people don't know how to group for experience Maeia. They sit in one spot and kill, wait for repops and begin again.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I didn't get to 60 doing that. We got bored too easily. We started out in PoF and played the game of "fill in the map", killing everything in sight until every area was hit, paying attention to the place holders and what made the bosses spawn, and what quests opened up doors to the surprise areas.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Personally, I don't like the carpet locations. It makes people lazy and they miss out on a lot of experience and study that way. I would rather the world be huge, where people actually have to travel to get there and NEED a group to do it. That's what I believe encourages grouping where people won't have to solo.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I like the old ideas from EQ1. I lived in Kelethin, so to get to Ro, I had to zone through Butcherblock, take the boat to Freeport and bind there in case we died. Then venture out into Ro, sometimes taking another boat into Iceclad and then move into Eastern Wastes and the dangerous trek to try to get into Thurgadin. Those were good times imo and you got experience without even realizing it and some pretty good loot along the way. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Or if your group really needed quick travel, you could hire the druid or wizard, pay the fee and get a transport to the Great Divide and go on a Kael hunting spree from there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Those were good times and you felt like you traveled to those places, because you did do it on foot. Then came the Scions that made druids less useful and then the PoK books which almost eliminated their use, save certain places.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I see the same thing happening again with EQ2 where there is no travel involved. Too many bells, griffons and conveniences where a group is not required to get anywhere because the danger factor is taken away.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm sure you would group more often if the /ooc requests were more along the nature of, "Need group that is interested in going to [insert continent here]", maybe taking 30-60 minutes of your time, giving you experience, loot and the opportunity to make acquaintances along the way.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't think people would really prefer solo'ing over adventuring where adventuring is done in the truest sense of the word and required groups and teamwork to do so. I don't think we would be arguing over dps either if that was the case, but I could be wrong. To each his own.</DIV>

Maeia

11-05-2005, 09:59 PM

<P><EM>"I didn't get to 60 doing that. We got bored too easily. We started out in PoF and played the game of "fill in the map", killing everything in sight until every area was hit, paying attention to the place holders and what made the bosses spawn, and what quests opened up doors to the surprise areas."</EM></P> <P>It sounds like you have a great group who actually understand the purpose behind this game. I envy you for that. Very few people understand that this is SOE's intent.</P>

SenorPhrog

11-05-2005, 10:00 PM

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kaylena wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kiara wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Just because someone doesn't agree with you and insists on being reasonable and pointing out facts, does not make them condescending or on the payroll.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Emotions are high right now, and that's causing people to think with their feelings rather than their grey matter.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Chill out, have some cheese.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#cc99ff>Things will be sorted out in the end and they actually ARE paying attention to what's being said here. They'd likely pay MORE attention if there were ... oh I don't know... reasonable arguments rather than impassioned flame fests accusing people of being on SOE's payroll cause they aren't cowtowing to you and kissing your hiney cause you're upset that you missed nappies and need your binkie.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>But just prior to that, Kiara wrote: "Happily there seems to be more discussion in this thread than flaming, which is refreshing.</P> <P>This is the problem with this forum. Your little group is running around scolding people like some parental authority and then praising them when they say and act in the manner you approve of. But the second someone disagrees with you and scolds YOU for being childish or berating, the shoe is on the other foot and you lash out and take offense in the worst way.</P> <P>Why is it okay for some of you to demean others and act like authorities in here but when it's retaliated back to you, in the same manner you've just spoken to them, you run to Raijinn to get it wiped away? Is it because you want people to read your scolding of others but you find it unacceptable and beneath you to have the favor returned? Or is it because you are taking advantage of Raijinn, knowing he can only read the post being complained about and doesn't see what YOU wrote before that because you know he doesn't have the time?</P> <P>This is not a communist country here. You can't appoint yourselves dictators and line up the opposing view for a firing squad to eliminate them.</P> <P>Don't USE Raijinn and point to the rules when you've broken them yourselves with your condescending attitudes. It's also in the rules, back as far as Faarwolf, that you're not allowed to follow people around, post to post, and harass them. Yet I found a certain poster here doing just that. A post buried so far down in the Guild forum yet he dug it out for no other purpose but to annoy because I was in it. How sick does it get? Why aren't you saying anything to him and you KNOW who I'm referring to.</P> <P>The changes to templars were asked for by a few persistant people because we actually believed there was a problem that needed attention. It is UNBELIEVABLE to me that our own class fought with us NOT to get them done, citing there was no problem at all other then we didn't know how to play our class. Every single statement was met with demands to "prove it" or shut up. That's for a developer or coder to say, not any of you. The fact of the matter is, you're not privy to the formulas used in calculating the balance of heals or the variables of the targets used upon them. You are only able to get a SENSE of what they are, but to ask for solid facts is pathetic because no one knows them but the coder himself. If you knew anything about programming at all and the complexity that exists within EQ2, you would know not to demand such answers from the end-user. There is NO parse that is going to be exactly the same no matter how much you demand them. I've done hundreds of them and no two are alike, but they do get a sense of the problem and I've sent them in. I don't need YOU to determine if they're worthy of attention. That's a dev's job!</P> <P>Raijinn posted about 2 weeks ago, saying he would take the concerns back to SoE and for that I appreciate it. That's all we were asking for. We did not ask to come in here and have to put up with this nonsense.</P> <P>What has been proven in this thread, is that some of you can dish it out, but you can't take it. It also proves you now want credit for something you fought AGAINST! If it wasn't for some of you, these changes could have been made a long time ago. But please don't act like you wanted them done because I can pull out dozens of threads where you chastised people for asking for them in the first place and beat the dead horse into dog food over it. Is there any end to your egos?</P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And now that it's on TEST, you should be thanking those persistant people. Yet here you are again, beating the next person with their perspective of how the changes feel to her.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This only proves one thing. You want some sick domination of these boards. Well let me tell you something. You do NOT pay anymore then the rest of us do here. You are therefore abusing these boards by bullying people around, inviting your friends and girlfriends just to have a voice in numbers and intimidate the poster. You are also ruining SoE's business by frustrating many to the point where they do not enjoy these forums any longer and carry that attitude over into the game and eventually just quit. You are to blame for that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The changes are being developed. If YOU don't like them, I suggest YOU go make another class. How does that make you feel?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I now have to make another forum, privately invite those who can speak to the issue and take those issues back to the developers via another avenue. And why? Because of the high and mighty attitudes here. Well get over yourselves already. The changes are coming and not because you were so right, but because you were so wrong. They obviously didn't agree with Kendricke & Co.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yeah, yeah, Raijinn. You can delete it now. I already posted this elsewhere and in /feedback.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Kaylena on <SPAN class=date_text>11-05-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>04:17 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR>I don't know exactly what you are referring to as "our little group." I'm sorry I don't have the superiority complex some people have and I'm sorry we didn't jump in with the 4 or 5 people that feel they have to champion the causes of the Templar. Nobody is the "authroity" in here but its apparent some of us know the rules better than others. Do you really think they are important enough for us to go to Raijin about? Honestly? I don't report abuse...ever unless you're putting up an ad for a free iPod. I don't prefer the conflict but I won't hide behind anybody when it comes to my beliefs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You can pull the threads? Please do sot. Show me where I said we wouldn't like the ability to solo a litle better. Show me where I said I didn't want a longer Mez or that a more frequent heal proc was a dumb idea. Just because I was happy (which I don't remember saying I was happy about Soloing) doesn't mean it couldn't be improved. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Whats really funny is you think they made these changes because of you and other angry people. Thats a little egotistical. Pull up why the changes are being made on Test and who put them there. Until then I'm going to assume you are just speculating.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There are some people that have done almost nothing but complain since LU#13 and its almost painful coming in here everyday watching this Soap Opera of epic proportion. I can't speak for Kiara but I'm tired of being lumped into groups with other people. I don't call anyone a "EQ1 dinosaurs who refuse to let go" do I? No because I respect that each person has an opinion and a way they enjoy to play.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Enjoy your new forum. I'm sure it'll be a bastion for the downtrodden.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I do have one more thing to ask you....which I'll do in a PM.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Radar-X on <span class=date_text>11-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:06 PM</span>

Gcha

11-05-2005, 11:28 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You know what? I got condescension and thats exactly how I responded. It must be nice to always be able to take the high road Gchang which I'm sure you always do (such as this post here). Did you actually even read his post or just start responding to mine? He asked what soloing meant and I explained what my definition of it is. If you got a better definition lets hear it and stop wasting our time with what you think about what I posted. </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I know full well probably 95% of the people who read these threads couldn't give two craps what I think and you know what? I could care less. You have your opinion and I have mine. I've actually gone out of my way to tone down how I respond so I don't lumped in with "the others" and have even conceded there are issues that could use a little attention but I dont' guess you remember any of that.</P> <P>As for being on SOE's payroll? Don't you wish you were the first person to accuse me of that. Yes SOE must pay me to sit around and belittle people to further their....hmmm now what exactly are they furthering again? You haven't even seen a FRACTION of what I can say because this isn't NGD and there is a wider tolerance for whining. I bite my tongue in here at least 20 times a day.</P> <P>I respect a lot of your posts Gchang because you aren't ridiculous and unreasonable normally but today is different apparently. I can lower myself to this because of where I normally post but coming from you Gchang this is disappointing. </P> <P>I have no agenda. I guess if I did have one its being tied to my low tolerance for cyring,moaning,and foolishness so yeah I guess thats about it.</P> <P>Raijin feel free to take this one out too if I crossed a line here. </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Actually, yes, I have noticed you being more reasonable on many posts and acknowledging some issues. Frankly, that's why this one surprised me as much as I did. </P> <P>Some of us are just getting a bit exasperated at the "environment" around this forum. I couldn't possibly explain that as well as Kaylena just did, so I will just rest on her analysis.</P> <P>I did not and do not upon re-reading them see condescension in Maeia's posts. Some sarcasm, yes. We all tend to do that. There's a difference. I don't see anything demeaning or belittling in his/her posts.</P> <P>Thus, I am not going to retract my post. However, I do feel I got a bit carried away with my tone, and for that I apologize. I've told myself before not to go make posts after a night drinking, and I need to start listening to myself on that =)</P> <P>As for Kiara, seems to me she got a response in the tone she came in with.<BR></P>

Elend

11-06-2005, 12:06 AM

I was wondering if you guys can explain to me why SOE feels all 6 priest classes should heal on par with eachother? Above all else, that is what i understand the least. <div></div>

Kayle

11-06-2005, 12:44 AM

<P>Radar, why you took that post personal without your name even being mentioned is beyond me. I've spoken to you in numerous PM's, 3 of which I just sent you. Raijinn asked to be shown the posts, not me. I'm saying that there ARE previous posts that incite people and that is why they respond the way they do. Raijinn never sees those posts because the normal person doesn't run around all day reporting it. His response was more or less, show me. So, I'm showing him. I'm sorry if Kiara was the example, but it's a good example nevertheless. Explain to me why she felt the need to point out the "refreshing" lack of "flames" in this thread? Do we need mom to come in and tell us how good we are playing in our room today? Do we get a cookie too? But make mom mad and watch out, because she can act even worse then what she demands of you, that's for sure. I think it makes a great point. Maybe you don't, but I did, since it happens all the time around here. So, since Raijinn asked for that, I'm obliging him. Everytime I write him, he never seems to know what I'm talking about. He asks for the posts and to show him what I'm referring to. He is obviously too busy to remember who said what to whom and only concentrates on the complaint at hand.</P> <P>And there is nothing egotistical about saying how some of us had to go through alternate channels to get the changes made we felt we deserved. We didn't get everything, but I guarantee you some of the ones on Test, were the ones we asked for. The point is, it's sad we had to do that. Why this forum allowed so many condescending remarks over asking for some changes, I'll NEVER understand. But make no mistake about who instigated it.</P> <P>I know many here who went that route of not posting here after being met with numerous banter and argument, who even spoke to devs, sent /feedback and went through others at SoE to get msg's to them. And why? Well, you know why. It's because this forum became unreadable, among other things and some chose a different alternative. My focus was in the healing end and that's what I sent the notes to devs about and concentrated on. But to now come in here, after knowing the hard work some of these people did, and read theo flip-flop positions from those who argued with them to the death on it, makes me wonder just who is doing it for attention sake and who is doing it because they had a bonafide concern. You may find it egotistical. I find it egotistical they run around touting how the changes are now done and how they sent /feedback. Oh come on! That person does it for the glory and nothing else. And the /feedback he did say he sent was someone else's idea! So please don't preach to me about ego, ok?</P> <P>DPS - Nothing I've sent had anything to do with dps. DPS was an after-thought I read when people seemed to be resigning themselves to the fact that they weren't going to get better heals, timers or utility. But I'm sure other people sent dps issues in as well. What they choose to make as a change, is obviously up to them. I have no right to argue with them.</P> <P>Anyway, you know what the problem is and who it is. I know what you've told me in PM's, but you need to tell that person too. I refuse to have to prove my thoughts to another player, who is no better then us. I feel if you cannot treat me as an equal paying customer, then don't get upset because I refuse to allow bullies to dominate a forum.</P> <P>I came here for a reason. I don't like all the changes in #LU13 and they said they would make allowances for tweaks and asked for that feedback when they posted the changes. I took them up on the offer. But no where in the offer did it state I needed to prove anything to another player. If I want to, I will. If I don't want to, because he's annoying as hell, then I don't have to. It's as simple as that.</P><p>Message Edited by Kaylena on <span class=date_text>11-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:17 PM</span>

Kayle

11-06-2005, 01:03 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elendae wrote:<BR>I was wondering if you guys can explain to me why SOE feels all 6 priest classes should heal on par with eachother? Above all else, that is what i understand the least.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>It's because when SoE wrote up the original definitions of the EQ2 healing classes, they made a statement that each of the 6 archtypes would be able to heal equally.</P> <P>From beta to Live up until LU#13 (the combat revamp), that was not the case. With no explanation at all, Templars were clearly the better healing class. Some players assumed that SoE was taking this route of making the Templar the primary healing class, and they believed that with good reason. It's because SoE said soooo many different things inititally that after over a year had passed, counting beta, people would assume this was the way it was going to be.</P> <P>Concerning the healing class, however, they did revert it back to the original design. Also note they didn't revert other things stated in the original design too, so it was anyone's GUESS what would get changed or not changed at all.</P> <P>Also, many of the old-school EQ1 players read that EQ2 was the "sequel" to Everquest Live and assumed from the word SEQUEL that much of the design would mirror the original concept. That also added to their expectations. It was probably a great way to market the product from a business standpoint, but it confused many people in the end.</P> <P>After LU#13, the concern remains that with 6 priest classes, all healing for the same amounts, the Templar, with no utility to really offer, was less preferable in groups then classes with better utility for group situtations.</P> <P>I'm also gathering from reading the dps complaints, that Templars are now solo'ing more then they used to and finding even that's not an option to progress their characters further.</P> <P>I hope that brings you up to speed to what's happening. and... Welcome to the Templar Forums! Please take a hard-hat from the box on your left and fix it securely to your head. You never know around here when it will come in handy. :smileyvery-happy:</P>

Elend

11-06-2005, 03:02 AM

Thank you for the explaination. Still i dont see how this sort of thinking is very logical. I played eq1 for 5 years and quite frankly, i thought how they handled healing (Clerics > shamans/druids) worked very well. Shamans and druids got other useful utility that made them useful, i.e) slowing mobs. I dont know if shamans get similar abilities in this, but that method seriously worked well. Also if you couldnt find a cleric, then you COULD function with a druid and/or shaman, but that wasnt their primary role. If they proclaim this game to be a 'sequel' then a lot of the major class roles should continue to carry over (and some have: rangers/wizards ---> scouts/mages). If their intent is to make this game more group friendly then i think they need to find a better way to do so imo. <div></div>

Kayle

11-06-2005, 04:23 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elendae wrote:<BR>Thank you for the explaination.<BR><BR>Still i dont see how this sort of thinking is very logical. I played eq1 for 5 years and quite frankly, i thought how they handled healing (Clerics > shamans/druids) worked very well. Shamans and druids got other useful utility that made them useful, i.e) slowing mobs. I dont know if shamans get similar abilities in this, but that method seriously worked well. Also if you couldnt find a cleric, then you COULD function with a druid and/or shaman, but that wasnt their primary role. If they proclaim this game to be a 'sequel' then a lot of the major class roles should continue to carry over (and some have: rangers/wizards ---> scouts/mages).<BR><BR>If their intent is to make this game more group friendly then i think they need to find a better way to do so imo. <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm with you. I wasn't prepared for this either. Many statements made by Smedley in the beginning would have never led me to believe that this was anything but the sequel of Everquest Live. In fact, I've read many reviews about EQ2 where the opinion of the writer was that SoE should not have used the name "Everquest" because it IS very different from the original. Sure, we expected some changes, but what I read of those changes had more to do with combat and locked encounters then it did about the spell lines that affect us now. Even the ruleset has changed many times. SoE's previous adamant stance on selling offline gear and coin has also changed and EQ2 ushered in the advent of it's first SE servers. There was also no plans for PvP in EQ2. That's also changed. I don't know what to say other then yes, they've changed their minds numerous times this year.</P> <P>But business is business. Everquest was very popular and was the #1 MMOG at one time. It does make complete marketing sense to ride the coat-tails of that product. But in the end, you have to decide which you'd rather play because they did turn out so very different.</P> <P>For the future (some months from now), some say Vanguard is going to be the next EQ1. And they say that because 20% of company left to go develope Vanguard in 2002 when Verant was sold to SoE. Ironically, that was the year the project for EQ2 was started. Also, part of the design for EQ2 was written by some of that 20% who left. So who knew? I don't know for sure if Vanguard will be similar to EQ1 but from what I've gathered of it, it seems to lean more in the EQ1 direction and away from the EQ2.</P> <P>It does remain however, that no matter what our expectations were, EQ2 has turned out to be not the game for some, yet, it's an enjoyable change for others.</P><p>Message Edited by Kaylena on <span class=date_text>11-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:29 PM</span>