Templar Changes on Test....

[Protoso]

<DIV><STRONG>Templar changes:<BR></STRONG>- Protective Faith no longer generates hate, and its recast timer was reduced by half.<BR>- Sign of Weakness now protects the target from area effects, and its duration grows with level.<BR>- Reverence upgrades now replenish health at the intended rate.<BR>- Involuntary Healer had its proc percentage and heal amount increased.<BR></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Protective faith change, sounds good.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sign of weakness change, im assuming that they mean that entire line of spells? if the duration is increased enough i think this spell could be remarkably useful in groups.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Reverence, hmm..not too sure on this one, figured it was a mediocre spell to begin with. Not too sure any upgrades/changes are going to change my mind on that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Involuntary Healer, now this spell sounds promising. I loved the idea of this spell, but the measely heal makes it almost annoying to cast. Who knows, wish i could see these changes on test for myself.</DIV>

[Xerxess]

<DIV>Hey atleast they are trying to make us better...:smileyvery-happy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Could be worse...we could have seen another part of an update with no templar changes :smileywink:</DIV>

[Timaarit]

I like those changes even though there is no dps change for templars. But still no fix on Harmony <span>:smileysad:</span> <div></div>

[Aleph]

<P>Glad to see the involuntary healer line improved.  10% proc rate for just a few hit points was way too low to make this spell worth casting.  If our utility is healing, it should heal for something a bit more than pocket change.</P> <P>The AOE shielding and duration increase on the pacify line is also very nice--it's not illusionist quality, but it can serve to lock down a ^^^ add in a pinch or for a temporary dps reduction in a linked encounter.</P> <P>I don't have reverence yet, so I can't comment, but all-in-all, I'm happy that they are at least looking out our utility--apparently they realize that some of it just hasn't been that useful.</P> <P>Alephin</P> <p>Message Edited by Alephin on <span class=date_text>11-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:26 AM</span>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Protosome wrote:<BR> <DIV><STRONG>Templar changes:<BR></STRONG>- Protective Faith no longer generates hate, and its recast timer was reduced by half.<BR>- Sign of Weakness now protects the target from area effects, and its duration grows with level.<BR>- Reverence upgrades now replenish health at the intended rate.<BR>- Involuntary Healer had its proc percentage and heal amount increased.<BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I know that I'm very pleased with the changes to the Protective Faith line on Test, as I've often had to wait far too long in most groups to cast the spell due to incredible hate gain (had the Spirit Sucker in Return to Nektropos rush PAST the Berserker using Master taunts just to attack me after I'd cast that on pull).</P> <P>Here's some quick looks at the Apprentice IV versions of Sign of Debility and Involuntary Healer on Test server:</P> <P>You'll note that my Sign lasts for 14 seconds while Involuntary Healer has a whopping 20% chance to trigger now (I'll get more/better screenshots when I have more time to spend on my Test Templar):</P> <P> </P> <P><IMG src="http://www.legion-whiterose.com/screenshots/spells/ss-test-spell-sign_of_debil.jpg">   <IMG src="http://www.legion-whiterose.com/screenshots/spells/ss-test-spell-involuntary_h.jpg"></P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P> <p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>11-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:23 AM</span>

[Caethre]

<DIV>OOC.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Let's see, four spells I practically never cast due to them being almost useless in the solo/small group area we are so struggling in which, after these changes I .... will still practically never cast.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Where is the DPS boost for soloing/grouping? Or self-DS or hammer pet? Or the root? Or replacing proc heals with real casted heals (on different timers)? Or even just scrapping the mez and making it a real stun? Or any of the other countless suggestions already made by hundreds of posters on these boards that will actually give us BALANCE with other priests?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well, it's not that any of these changes actually hurt us, and I'm sure some will be pleased with some of them, in full groups and raids. But I am personally totally underwhlemed at the unimportance of these changes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Nice to see the Wardens got some good fixes though.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And that fix to Snare will help druid solong somewhat, indeed, Annaelisa was noticing it was not sticking so well when soloing those yellow and orange cons in Enchanted Lands last evening. Now it will be easier. Level 29 now, will get to 30 this weekend ...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Felishanna / Annaelisa</DIV>

[Nari]

I am happy about it, too.  I mentored down to a 34 level templar the other night.  I was hating life.  My squishy mage friend uses his scout pet, so Involuntary healer went off a lot.  At 34, I didn't have it yet.  I forgot how much that sucked. Yay for better spells.  I am happy about the Protective Faith, too. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <DIV>OOC.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Let's see, four spells I practically never cast due to them being almost useless in the solo/small group area we are so struggling in which, after these changes I .... will still practically never cast.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Reverence is "almost useless"?  How so?  </P> <P>Likewise, I'm personally confused how you find Shielding Faith to be "almost useless".  It's a ~900 point spell ward that can now be cast every minute that costs only 59 power.  How can that be "almost useless"?  Even in soloing, how is that "almost useless"?  Even before the hate changes, I was using that spell in every soloing situation I could.  </P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P> <p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>11-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:44 AM</span>

[bigmak20]

I think these changes, if they work (fingers crossed), are a positive step towards making our utility 'compromise' of healing utility a viable one.  I.e. if our utility is healing this is starting to look fair.  Would really like to see some fixes to our pathetic soloability and DPS.... healing was decent before and this brings a ray of hope to Templar -- but what people are really mad about is the inability to solo and quest. But hey... SOE is throwing us a bone.  Can't look a gift horse in the mouth, etc <span>:smileywink: </span>

[Blast2hell]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <DIV>OOC.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> Or replacing proc heals with real casted heals (on different timers)? <BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I hope they don't take away our proc heals.  If I lose Glory of Combat I will be a very enraged Templar.   That would be something that would make me want to quit.</DIV>

[Caethre]

<P>OOC. </P> <P>Deleting GoC, Marks, Signs and Involuntary lines would not make me even blink. Random proc heals do not impress me, and are hardly skillful to use or reliable for anything.</P> <P>Give me a fast-casting single target root that I can cast multiple opponents at once, lasting a random duration 12-72 seconds, and another direct heal line with FAST recast time that lets me decide who to heal and when and how much power I want to use (and thereby also restoring overall cleric healing advantage over druids and shamans), and I'll stop calling for equal DPS.</P> <P>But then again, I'd have a 'real' cleric then.</P> <P>Yeah, I know, I can't design the class (more's the pity <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ).</P> <P>However, until then, stuck with pointless no-fun spell lines, healing parity and 1/3 the DPS of Furies, I'll keep asking for some balance.</P> <P> </P> <P>But ... Each to their own. </P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Caethre on <span class=date_text>11-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:43 PM</span>

[SenorPhrog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <P>OOC. </P> <P>Deleting GoC, Marks, Signs and Invvoluntary lines would not make me even blink. Random proc heals do not impress me, and are hardly skillful to use or reliable for anything.</P> <P>Giving me single target root lasting a random duration 12-72 seconds, and another direct heal line with FAST recast time that lets me decide who to heal and when and how much power I want to use (and thereby also restoring overall cleric healing advantage over druids and shamans), and I'll stop calling for equal DPS.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Ahh so basically lets just port the "Cleric" from EQ1 in here and everyone will be happy.

[Gcha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR><BR>Ahh so basically lets just port the "Cleric" from EQ1 in here and everyone will be happy. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>/holds up his hand =)</DIV>

[Blast2hell]

<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <P>OOC. </P> <P>Deleting GoC, Marks, Signs and Involuntary lines would not make me even blink. Random proc heals do not impress me, and are hardly skillful to use or reliable for anything.</P> <P>Give me a fast-casting single target root that I can cast multiple opponents at once, lasting a random duration 12-72 seconds, and another direct heal line with FAST recast time that lets me decide who to heal and when and how much power I want to use (and thereby also restoring overall cleric healing advantage over druids and shamans), and I'll stop calling for equal DPS.</P> <P>But then again, I'd have a 'real' cleric then.</P> <P>Yeah, I know, I can't design the class (more's the pity <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ).</P> <P>However, until then, stuck with pointless no-fun spell lines, healing parity and 1/3 the DPS of Furies, I'll keep asking for some balance.</P> <P> </P> <P>But ... Each to their own. </P> <P> </P> <P>Message Edited by Caethre on <SPAN class=date_text>11-04-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>04:43 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>They can take unyielding benediction and give me a spell for that.  But trading other spells is not a good idea.  Improving the spells would be nice though.  The mark line was weakend way too much.  The sign line can be very useful but sadly nobody knows when it's casted on something so people always break it.</P> <P> </P> <P>I don't think templars should be the dominant healer, I think now we are only the best healer in certain situations, while our fellow priest are better in other situations.  I think that's the ideal balance.  The problem now, and this is where you and I may agree, is they need to balance the other stuff.  And DPS needs to be on the top of that list.</P> <P> </P> <P>I no longer agree with the people that say were the better healer, so our DPS should be weaker.  I've parsed heals time and time again, and I see that other priest can heal better or for more in certain situations....so they better get to balancing the other numbers.</P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>

[Kayle]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR><BR>Ahh so basically lets just port the "Cleric" from EQ1 in here and everyone will be happy. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>/holds up his hand =)</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>It'll probably never happen but I wouldn't mind some of the spell lines they have that we don't.  You have to admit, it was very concise lineup.</P> <P>Well, I'm glad to see something being done anyway.  Kudos to those who helped voice an opinion to get things changed!  And no kudos at all to those who sat in here fighting us tooth and nail that nothing was wrong.  I hope you don't expect ANY credit at all, because you don't deserve any.</P> <P>Keep the changes coming and don't shy down just because someone wears you down with arguments!</P>

[Xerxess]

<DIV>I take it some of you haven't played EQ1 clerics to the higher levels because if you had...you would know that we would bored out of skulls. It would be so bad that you would blast heals and be out of power and sit down and play EQ tetris. (Gems)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The only way they are gonna make EQ1 clerics, if they upgrade clerics Direct heal lines and give us Complete heal if they want to take away all reactives.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But ummmm....you will prolly be back in these forums begging to be changed back after that happens...due to boredom of the templar class.</DIV>

[Sleet_Levanter]

<DIV>These spell improvements look pretty good.  I have not played my templar much since LU13 primarily because soloing became such a chore.  I think these spell changes are a good thing.  Does anyone know though if they will help much with soloing?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The changes that LU13 brought that affected my soloing ability do not include reduced DPS.  We have never had great DPS and I do not expect to get better DPS.  The changes that did affect my soloing are as follows.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>* More rationed use of an enemy mob's power pool.  My MO for soloing usually was to just heal myself as the mobs beat on me until they had used up all their power, then nuke them.  I find I am needing to change this method, however when up against a group with a healer in it, my DPS is just not sufficient to really do anything to the group until the healer's Power has been exhausted.  This change has made my long solo fights even longer.</DIV> <DIV>* Decreased avoidance for all plate wearers.  This affected both my ability to cast without interruption and presumably how much power I have to expend to keep myself healed while the mobs use up their power pools.</DIV> <DIV>* The loss of parry for all priest classes.  This pretty much had the same effect as the decreased avoidance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Do any of the changes help out with soloing?  I don't know.  I do not see how they address any of the above three points, but perhaps they make a difference in another way.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I can definiately see their value when in a group, but I do not personally see a big issue with our current grouping abilities.  I think I would have rather seen Involuntary Healer changed to an encounter AoE rather than having the proc rate increased, but the change is still nice to see.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[SenorPhrog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR><BR>Ahh so basically lets just port the "Cleric" from EQ1 in here and everyone will be happy. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>/holds up his hand =)</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Lol...ok well lets make sure to bring along the "you have to sit down to regen" too....</DIV>

[Elend]

Well, a step in the right direction i suppose.  i still dont see this affecting us too much i.e) the involuntary healer buff is supercool, but it isnt that big of an increse. It seems to me SOE is eager to please in most cases this time around, for example... giving normal run speed in stealth mode and other changes like that. Must be because of other mmo's competing with eq2. All i know is if they dont start making some changes, either to templars directly, or in some way to make us distinct again im probly going to reactivate my wow account (Cringe at the thought of the population that plays wow). Atleast that game was well balanced with soloing and was midly amusing in a juvenile sort of way. <div></div>

[Mali]

<DIV>If the sign (mez) line have increase duration, this will help with soloing by slightly decreasing interruptions on group based encounters.  Hopefully duration is increase enough to maintain a constant mez on a mob.  Can anyone verify if duration on Adept 3 or Master 1 is above 20 seconds?</DIV>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Malien wrote:<BR> <DIV>If the sign (mez) line have increase duration, this will help with soloing by slightly decreasing interruptions on group based encounters.  Hopefully duration is increase enough to maintain a constant mez on a mob.  Can anyone verify if duration on Adept 3 or Master 1 is above 20 seconds?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I'll try to verify that in the next day or so. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I also want to see how soloing is affected now that I can use Rays of Faith on group encounters while using Sign of Debility.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Gcha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR><BR>Ahh so basically lets just port the "Cleric" from EQ1 in here and everyone will be happy. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>/holds up his hand =)</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Lol...ok well lets make sure to bring along the "you have to sit down to regen" too....</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Doesn't bother me =)  But, of course, as you undoubtedly know, that was removed long long ago.

[Gcha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Xerxess wrote:<BR> <DIV>I take it some of you haven't played EQ1 clerics to the higher levels because if you had...you would know that we would bored out of skulls. It would be so bad that you would blast heals and be out of power and sit down and play EQ tetris. (Gems)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The only way they are gonna make EQ1 clerics, if they upgrade clerics Direct heal lines and give us Complete heal if they want to take away all reactives.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But ummmm....you will prolly be back in these forums begging to be changed back after that happens...due to boredom of the templar class.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Maybe some found it boring.  I sure didn't.  And all the other clerics I knew (and still know) loved playing their toons.</P> <P>You'd never need CH in this game.  The Remedy and Celestial lines would be just dandy =)</P>

[Kendricke]

<P>...and Beastlords.  Don't forget Epics!  We also need a Plane of Knowledge.  Anyone else think we need more Drogmar?  </P> <P>There's a great game for those folks who think Classic Everquest was great.  Just click on this link and you can even get a free trial:  <A href="http://escapetonorrath.station.sony.com/" target=_blank>http://escapetonorrath.station.sony.com/</A></P>

[Gcha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>...and Beastlords.  Don't forget Epics!  We also need a Plane of Knowledge.  Anyone else think we need more Drogmar?  </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Now you're getting in the spirit Kendricke.  This is very encouraging to see !</DIV>

[Xerxess]

<DIV>Legacy of Yekesha was my Favorite expansion of all time...the trolls...the new mounts...they DYES!!!!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>BRING BACK THE DYES!!!</DIV>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>...and Beastlords.  Don't forget Epics!  We also need a Plane of Knowledge.  Anyone else think we need more Drogmar?  </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Now you're getting in the spirit Kendricke.  This is very encouraging to see !</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I can appreciate the spirit, and I still log into my level 66 High Priest from time to time to see how things have changed.  Overall though, I'm much, much happier with Everquest 2 than I was in Classive Everquest.  I can certainly understand how others might feel they'd prefer this to be a different, more "Everquest" game, but it's not as if Everquest has gone away.  You can still log in and experience the original game, even now receiving new expansions.</P> <P> </P>

[Blast2hell]

<P>hehe, anytime I think EQ2 has issues, I just remember where I was at this time in EQ1,  2 months after the Kunark expansion came out EQ1 was a million miles behind where EQ2 is today.   Zero chance to solo for most of player base, one armor model per armor grade, xp was slower then snail, the casual player was spit on.   Questing was just shy of impossible,  and the Verant Programers Idea of communicating and patching were a Joke.  </P> <P> </P> <P>But back on subject,  I'm looking forward to the involuntary line,  I think this is going to be very nice.  Still wish we could get a more powerful heal out of the proc line for reduced percentage to proc.   </P> <P>I may use protective faith a bit now too, though the damage types it wards too aren't all that common.   Wish it would ward against everything but physical...that would be nice.</P>

[BenEm]

Awesome ! Involantary healer looks good now ! Things are moving in the right direction .

[KingOfF00LS]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Xerxess wrote:<BR> <DIV>I take it some of you haven't played EQ1 clerics to the higher levels because if you had...you would know that we would bored out of skulls. It would be so bad that you would blast heals and be out of power and sit down and play EQ tetris. (Gems)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The only way they are gonna make EQ1 clerics, if they upgrade clerics Direct heal lines and give us Complete heal if they want to take away all reactives.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But ummmm....you will prolly be back in these forums begging to be changed back after that happens...due to boredom of the templar class.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Not hardly.  I played a high level raiding cleric and enchanter so I know.  The EQ1 cleric is far and away better balanced and far more useful than an EQ2 templar.</P> <P>Too bad EQ1 as a game has gone down the crapper, though....</P> <P> </P>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KingOfF00LS wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>  I played a high level raiding cleric and enchanter so I know. </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Did you solo much with your high level cleric?  How many AA?  Why did you quit Everquest 1 if the class was more balanced and you feel this game has "gone down the crapper".<BR>

[KingOfF00LS]

Keep up with the convo, please.<p>Message Edited by KingOfF00LS on <span class=date_text>11-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:41 PM</span>

[Kendricke]

<P>Though I apologize for misreading part of your post (mistaking a reference to EQ1 as EQ2), I hardly think that sort of response is necessary.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[KingOfF00LS]

<P>**PLEASE NO PERSONAL ATTACKS**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:25 AM</span>

[Stjarna Kvar]

Great Start! Now lets improve Mark Line HealPoints/%toProc and Redemption Line HealPoints/%toProc and call it a day. I much prefer to have these lines improved to make us the HANDS DOWN healer on the block, to making a Templar into a Fury--as some people seem to wish these days.Thanks Devs

[RipFlex]

<P>We don't want to be Furys, don't be foolish.  We dislike doing 1/3rd the damage per strike either.  What class in any Archtype that doesn't have Strong Utility does 1/3 or less damage in it's Same Arch-type ---- Templar only... even Inquisitor does more damage.  you would think Bards and Chanters but they have LOTS of utility that matters and they still are way higher up in the DPS tree... Coercers well they are broken I hear ?</P> <P>Fury can get to 900+ on a nuke a Templar might see 300+ if you get above adept1 and ONLY on a 51-60th level Nuke replacement.... ever.  And I barely break 100 damage per 2 seconds on a 2H pristine imbued cobalt war hammer that it's gleaming strike does more damage than my nuke.... how wrong is that?</P> <P>Now I group mostly but I harvest and beat of greenies to avoid training, and I do Guild Writs.... so Soloing needs to be tolerable.  I'm not looking for 100% soloing, but I hate spending 8 minutes killing a group of 4 solo mob with people walking by asking if I need somehelp or if I'm really okay ? :/    Heal, interupted (400x), heal, HO cycle with 6 interruptions, heal, heal - interrupted - painfullt start another HO cycle, fizzle, thwack for 48 Damage, thwack for 100 damage, stunned, fizzle, interrupted -  You get the picture?</P> <P> </P> <p>Message Edited by RipFlex on <span class=date_text>11-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:48 PM</span>

[Kayle]

<P>KingofFools:  Just use the other URL I sent you.  He can't bother you there.  :smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>Then you can compile it and send a PM to a dev.  Works better that way because this is just futile.</P>

[KingOfF00LS]

<P>**REMOVED FLAME BAIT**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:26 AM</span>

[Cowdenic]

<P>**REMOVED FLAME BAIT**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:28 AM</span>

[lichmeister]

<span><blockquote><hr>Protosome wrote:<div><strong>Templar changes:</strong>- Protective Faith no longer generates hate, and its recast timer was reduced by half.- Sign of Weakness now protects the target from area effects, and its duration grows with level.- Reverence upgrades now replenish health at the intended rate.- Involuntary Healer had its proc percentage and heal amount increased.</div><hr></blockquote>ok thats a start, but if our healing abilities are to be balanced with other priests, our dmg should be as well <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> i'll play my templar again when i can solo a blue encounter without the constant threat of death, while my other characters can fight the same mobs while i eat a sandwhich and roll a smoke... less healing or damage for equally less mana in the same amount of time is NOT balance!</span><div></div>

[quetzaqotl]

<P>how is healing ability balanced w/o talking about  the "all healers should heal equal" bs?</P> <P>if all healing ability is balanced are all the def buffs you get crap?</P> <P>just a question, cause if they are crap and dont do anything at all then devs should take a look at it for sure.</P><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:07 AM</span>

[Cowdenic]

what def buffs, they took all our mit buffs away with LU13

[quetzaqotl]

def buffs as in hp buffs procs etc all buffs that are considered defensive I didnt mean +def but all spells which are by nature defensive like a buff that procs a heal at a certain % etc.

[Cowdenic]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote:<BR>def buffs as in hp buffs procs etc all buffs that are considered defensive I didnt mean +def but all spells which are by nature defensive like a buff that procs a heal at a certain % etc. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>oh you mean the hp proc that your imbued T6 armor can give more than. OK.

[SenorPhrog]

<span><blockquote><hr>lichmeister wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Protosome wrote:<div><strong>Templar changes:</strong>- Protective Faith no longer generates hate, and its recast timer was reduced by half.- Sign of Weakness now protects the target from area effects, and its duration grows with level.- Reverence upgrades now replenish health at the intended rate.- Involuntary Healer had its proc percentage and heal amount increased.</div><hr></blockquote>ok thats a start, but if our healing abilities are to be balanced with other priests, our dmg should be as well <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> i'll play my templar again when i can solo a blue encounter without the constant threat of death, while my other characters can fight the same mobs while i eat a sandwhich and roll a smoke... less healing or damage for equally less mana in the same amount of time is NOT balance!</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I've got no problem at all soloing blue.   White I have to pay attention to and yellow requires accuracy in what I do but blue cons?   I'm not telling you how to play but I'm far from above average in my equipment and spells.</span><div></div>

[Blast2hell]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote:<BR>def buffs as in hp buffs procs etc all buffs that are considered defensive I didnt mean +def but all spells which are by nature defensive like a buff that procs a heal at a certain % etc. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>a possible healing proc is not a defensive buff.  It potential healing....which gets thrown into the equation of balancing healers.  The basic goal of healers being balanced is that each priest has the pro's and cons, yet they can all be useful to there group/keep them alive.   In addition, the ability of each priest to possibly heal close to the same amount of HP over a given amount of time.    There are situations where no shaman or cleric can outheal a druid, and visa versa. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>By your definition of Defensive buffs we could sit here and point out all sorts of spells that every priest class has that is a defensive buff.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So for future reference, common understanding of a defensive buff is something you cast on another player that directly effects there stats as long as the spell is active on them.</DIV>

[Blast2hell]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> lichmeister wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>i'll play my templar again when i can solo a blue encounter without the constant threat of death, while my other characters can fight the same mobs while i eat a sandwhich and roll a smoke...<BR><BR><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I guess you may want to explain a blue encounter....are you talking about a triple up heroic?  or double up heroic?   A single up blue or anything under that shouldn't kill you.   As far as I'm concerned, and I believe most templars agree, the problem with our soloing is not that we get killed easily, it's that our DPS is so low that it takes us forever to kill anything, which in the end practically forces us to grouping while higher DPS priest aren't so burdened.<BR>

[Takeo1]

<P>Truth be told - I have had some issues soloing blues as well...and white? Hell - I might as well kill blues for the downtime I get even with T6 drink. Its a matter of preference I guess. In my opinion, it just wrong that it take me so [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] long to solo anything worth the time to solo while I watch nukers skate by me at 120mph. Now I will give you this : its is a helluva lot harder to kill me, but who cares? I am seeing that we are supposed to groupers - but so what? Solo isnt a viable option now, WITH good xp gain, so I need to reroll? It isnt mia cupla that SoE went ahead and bumped these mobs up to begin with and left me with my johnson hanging in the breeze without the dps to compensate....but all this is another story.</P> <P> </P> <P>Its a good move - keep these "utility" heals moving until they turn into procless combat buffs/debuffs. You know - kinda like...umm...slows, and ummm....damage sheilds. Then we are cooking with oil. When it gets good and hot, we can throw a sizable nuke upgrade in and maybe, just maybe, make our lockdowns worth a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] with a slow cook. Then Kazon will be happy and the world will be as it should, and Templars will be served medium rare with a bit of gravvy, but not too much gravvy, because God knows we all want to play a game that challenges our patience to the extreme limits of its endurance.</P> <P> </P> <P>Lates.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[PRALL]

<P>On topic:</P> <P>The changes I see are all good in my opinion. This will be one of the few updates that I see all positive for us. Even when I haven't agreed with the changes in past updates, I adapt and overcome. But, these changes are good, even if they aren't necessarily the ones high on your list.</P> <P>Off topic:</P> <P>I can't believe that I'm hearing people that want templars to be more like EQ1 clerics. I played a cleric up to level 50 in EQ1, and he didn't solo worth a crap. You complain about the balance in EQ2, but fail to remember how unbalanced the healers in EQ1 were. A druid the same level as my EQ1 cleric could heal just as efficiently, yet could also kite 4 mobs around and not suffer a scratch. You take a 50 cleric and 50 druid, and say go... see which gets to 65 first by soloing (assuming equal play time and ability.) You talk about the spell lines.. I say they worked on that some. I finally have a spell that stuns, and a spell that pacifys. But to say you want it more like EQ1 is extreme in my opinion.</P> <P>I chose templar because I like the pure healer. If I wanted to be more of a DPS class, I would have chose a different discipline. I can still solo, albeit slow. But that's ok. EQ2 was designed to allow every class to solo, not to make every class do it equally or allow for a level a day soloing. You think we got rough, how many EQ1 druids play a different class in EQ2 now that kiting has been all but eliminated?</P> <P><FONT color=#6699ff size=4>SUTURES WOUNDMENDER</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#6699ff size=4>47 Templar, 53 Jeweler</FONT></P>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>PRALLIC wrote:<p>Off topic:</p> <p><b>I can't believe that I'm hearing people that want templars to be more like EQ1 clerics</b>. I played a cleric up to level 50 in EQ1, and he didn't solo worth a crap. You complain about the balance in EQ2, but fail to remember how unbalanced the healers in EQ1 were. A druid the same level as my EQ1 cleric could heal just as efficiently, yet could also kite 4 mobs around and not suffer a scratch. You take a 50 cleric and 50 druid, and say go... see which gets to 65 first by soloing (assuming equal play time and ability.) You talk about the spell lines.. I say they worked on that some. I finally have a spell that stuns, and a spell that pacifys. But to say you want it more like EQ1 is extreme in my opinion.</p> <p><b>I chose templar because I like the pure healer. If I wanted to be more of a DPS class, I would have chose a different discipline</b>. I can still solo, albeit slow. But that's ok. EQ2 was designed to allow every class to solo, not to make every class do it equally or allow for a level a day soloing. You think we got rough, how many EQ1 druids play a different class in EQ2 now that kiting has been all but eliminated?</p><hr></blockquote>Hah. You can't believe people want templars to be like eq1 cleric and then you say that your reason to pick a templar was just that. ROFL. In eq1 templars were pure healers and not DPS. So go figure. I dont want eq1 clerics here, thus I want balance in healing and in dps. If I wanted your idea of a templar, I would have played EQ1 and chosen cleric.</span><div></div>

[Zabumt]

<DIV>Regardless of the arguments here.  We still have the issue of why an xp group would want a Templar over any other healer.  This is important because no xp group needs a Templar over another priest.  That being said, how well can a Templar solo while being passed over by xp groups?  Not well at all.  In a few sentences, that explains it all.  We are, by far, the best healers in the game in our current state.  The problem is, this is only needed for raids.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[RipFlex]

<P>1. I played 1 free month of EQ1 as a Iksar, nobody wanted me in a group, Monk.  And never played after that... EQ1 seemed buggy and too many Elitists and 3 expansions later to care to try to get into it.  So I have no Idea what an EQ1 any class did, except that Monks after said nerf were rendered useless?</P> <P>2. Tell me you would enjoy taking 8 minutes average to kill a solo mob of 4 or so green conned monsters?  If the answer yes, then play a Templar !  I will repeat 100000 more times Soloing still needed for Books quests and LnLs and Writs, yes you can form groups for this, but can you honestly say people do?  I just want the Soloing part be a bit more tolerable, that's it!  Why all the Flames that we are not allowed to kill our SOLOs a little bit faster - why is this asking too much?</P> <P>My example of a Fury's 40th something nuke at Adept 1 did over 800+ damage as my 53rd Consecrated Strike does 400 at Adept 3.... asking a bit more DPS not just Templars but with all the rest other priests scaled properly... I mean I have been reading some nuke damage across all Priests on adept1 books... some of them are pretty sick... look at Templars and Inquisitors nukes... like it's laughable.</P> <P>We don't have Evac, we don't have SoW, we don't have Invisibilty, we don't shapechange.... But we do have Odyssey !!!! WooHoooo !!!!</P><p>Message Edited by RipFlex on <span class=date_text>11-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:34 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote>RipFlex wrote:<p>We don't have Evac, we don't have SoW, we don't have Invisibilty, we don't shapechange.... But we do have Odyssey !!!! WooHoooo !!!!</p><p>Message Edited by RipFlex on <span class="date_text">11-08-2005</span> <span class="time_text">07:34 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Yes, we are constantly reminded how useful Odyssey is when doing writs. Just like my refresh timer for Call of Qeynos isn't up by the time I finish those writs... I mean seriously, when I do writs, I pick 2 for lavastorm and 2 for everfrost. It takes me well over an hour to finish 2 writs with my lvl 54 templar, and 2 hours to finish all 4. Now I do miss that Odyssey when I play with my lvl 46 monk... under 30 mins per 2 writs means I can finish eight writs in well under 2 hours and then do some general questing/xping while I wait for the recast to run. But then again, only people who do not play templar say how useful Odyssey would be for them while doing writs <span>:smileytongue: Of course Odyssey would be useful to a class that can blast through a writ in 5 mins. </span></span><div></div>

[Sinnester]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P><FONT color=#66ffcc size=2>Kendricke wrote:</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ffcc size=2>Reverence is "almost useless"?  How so?  </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ffcc size=2>Likewise, I'm personally confused how you find Shielding Faith to be "almost useless".  It's a ~900 point spell ward that can now be cast every minute that costs only 59 power.  How can that be "almost useless"?  Even in soloing, how is that "almost useless"?  Even before the hate changes, I was using that spell in every soloing situation I could.  </FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> <P>Shielding Faith only works on specific damage and that damage only occurs on specific mobs.  These mobs are so few in between that yes, this spell is rather useless.  Even in the epic raids I rarely use it.</P></BLOCKQUOTE>

[PRALL]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Hah. You can't believe people want templars to be like eq1 cleric and then you say that your reason to pick a templar was just that. ROFL. In eq1 templars were pure healers and not DPS.<BR><BR>So go figure. I dont want eq1 clerics here, thus I want balance in healing and in dps. If I wanted your idea of a templar, I would have played EQ1 and chosen cleric.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You miss my point entirely.</P> <P>EQ1 clerics didn't solo well, neither do EQ2 Templars, yet the same people that said they wanted more like an EQ1 cleric are the same crying for more DPS. The two don't mix.</P> <P>The other comment tells you I knew when I picked Templar that it was a low DPS class. So, I don't whine about that on the boards. If I really wanted to have more DPS, I would roll another toon. Crying about lack of DPS in a class that was never designed to have any is asking the devs to cater to what YOU want, not what is necessarily good for the game as a whole.</P> <P>Don't get me wrong, voicing opinions isn't necessarily a bad thing. Kicking a dead horse is. If they are obviously not going to change templar DPS, then you either live with it, re-roll, or play something else. </P> <P>Sorry if that comes off aggressive, but I hate when people misinterpret my meaning.</P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#cc00ff>SUTURES</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=1>etc...etc...</FONT></P> <P><BR></P>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>PRALLIC wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Hah. You can't believe people want templars to be like eq1 cleric and then you say that your reason to pick a templar was just that. ROFL. In eq1 templars were pure healers and not DPS.So go figure. I dont want eq1 clerics here, thus I want balance in healing and in dps. If I wanted your idea of a templar, I would have played EQ1 and chosen cleric. <hr> </blockquote> <p>You miss my point entirely.</p> <p>EQ1 clerics didn't solo well, neither do EQ2 Templars, yet the same people that said they wanted more like an EQ1 cleric are the same crying for more DPS. The two don't mix.</p><hr></blockquote>Sorry, it is not me who has missed the point. This has all the time been about 2 choices. Either we are eq1 cleric with superior healing, or we are not. Like said, it is very unlike that we will be superior healers and thus we are demanding more dps. I think every single templar who wants more dps in the forums, would be satisfied if they left our dps alone and gave us significantly more healing power. But like said, the point is that we dont have the eq1 healing superiority, but we are close to eq1 cleric dps wise. And that needs to be changed.</span><div></div>

[Gcha]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> PRALLIC wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Hah. You can't believe people want templars to be like eq1 cleric and then you say that your reason to pick a templar was just that. ROFL. In eq1 templars were pure healers and not DPS.<BR><BR>So go figure. I dont want eq1 clerics here, thus I want balance in healing and in dps. If I wanted your idea of a templar, I would have played EQ1 and chosen cleric.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You miss my point entirely.</P> <P>EQ1 clerics didn't solo well, neither do EQ2 Templars, yet the same people that said they wanted more like an EQ1 cleric are the same crying for more DPS. The two don't mix.</P> <P>The other comment tells you I knew when I picked Templar that it was a low DPS class. So, I don't whine about that on the boards. If I really wanted to have more DPS, I would roll another toon. Crying about lack of DPS in a class that was never designed to have any is asking the devs to cater to what YOU want, not what is necessarily good for the game as a whole.</P> <P>Don't get me wrong, voicing opinions isn't necessarily a bad thing. Kicking a dead horse is. If they are obviously not going to change templar DPS, then you either live with it, re-roll, or play something else. </P> <P>Sorry if that comes off aggressive, but I hate when people misinterpret my meaning.</P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#cc00ff>SUTURES</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=1>etc...etc...</FONT></P> <P><BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Have to say I didn't understand your post either.  Druids could never heal equally to clerics in EQ1.  Sure they could solo better, that was the whole deal.  Then when a lot of druids got to high level and couldn't solo anymore they discovered that they weren't particularly wanted for groups and had little use at raids, so they complained and their healing was improved for that reason ... but not to cleric level.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You say you have stun and pacify now.  We had stuns and pacify spells in EQ1 ... good ones.  Where were you?   So you lost me entirely here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A lot of us picked clerics to be pure healers.  However, we expected to be clearly the best healer.  That's WHY we picked clerics.   If we'd wanted to be druids or shammies, well, we could have picked that, couldn't we.  Now it's been made clear that SOE doesn't plan on there being a clearly best healer.  Oookay, well that may be curtain call time for me and some others, but before we go we'd like to see if SOE plans to give clerics ANYTHING to offset that.  So a lot of people ask for more DPS because soloing is slow.  They simply figure, well, if I can't be the best healer then I don't also want to be the lowest DPS and utility ... give me SOMETHING.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You're against this?</DIV>