The Parsing argument and why Templars are just bench players.

[zorbdan]

<DIV>This is a game of numbers no doubt and I enjoy comparing stats just as much as the next guy but when you are looking at Templars in particular, parsing them just doesn't tell the whole story.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am a different kind of player, I don't play with parsers I play by feel, I look at things from a more philisophical standpoint. That is probably why I play a healer, the things they do and bring to a group often cannot be effectively measured with a parser.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here is what I am getting at...When someone states that Templars don't do very good damage. That is a claim that may or may not be true and can be verified with parsing but there is so much more to it than that. The group/solo dynamics come into play, in a group Templars main focus is healing anyway, solo every class has to be able to do damage to kill a mob plain and simple. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The bottom line is when someone makes a claim that Templars DPS is too low or Templars can't heal as well as x class. There are so many other factors that come into play, so many variables with the differences in healing spells strength( adept1/master2) and how they operate for each archtype(ward,reactive,regen), variables with tank classes and how they tank, variables with mob types etc ...So many variables and the fact that what we do as Templars is not some cut and dry straight forward measureable function. Group dynamics are very different from solo dynamics and the rules that apply in those two scenerios differ greatly for healing classes especially.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Parsing to compare DPS classes sure, pretty straight forward, although even with a class that is geared more toward the numbers aspect of the game they too have many variables. The differences with DOTs and burst damage is very similar to what happens when you compare the healing archtypes and wards, reactives, regens, burst heals etc ..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Parsing just doesn't tell the whole story, with all the variables that can occur in the game it is not an accurate way to demonstrate the value, functionality, purpose or effectivness of any given class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Many parsing programs are flawed in the way they measure things also, I won't even get into that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Analysis of statistical information and game logs tells you alot about certain aspects of the game but this game does have an inherent x factor. Templars in particular fall into that x factor more so than some of the other classes. In sports there are players who don't lead the team in every statistical category but they bring that x factor to the team and it is valuable. These x factor players in sports generally are not the team stars they are usually guys that come off the bench to help the team get that tiny little edge need to win the game. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templars are the bench players of EQ2 with an x factor, if you like that role play one, if you want to be a superstar, you better play a different class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  </DIV><p>Message Edited by zorbdan on <span class=date_text>11-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:46 AM</span>

[Kendricke]

<P>I believe our roles as Templars is to make the roles of others in our groups better.  We're a support class, through and through.  This is what I expected when I chose the class.  This is still what I have today.  The role's changed slightly, but the basics remain the same.  </P> <P>I can improve the DPS of those around me much more than I can improve my own DPS.  I support others.  In the right kind of group, I can personally add hundreds of damage per second to the overall effort.  In a raid, I can add thousands.  Yet, if I'm by myself, I can't add more than a dozen or two dozen DPS to myself using my own abilities.  The same spells I can use to make others shine can't do much for myself.  This is an issue and one I hope to be able to show through parsing and other facts.  This is just one example of how my abilities are much better utilized in a group or raid setting than by soloing.  </P> <P>Other classes actually lose effectiveness in groups or raids.  For instance, Illusionists can do very little to affect raid targets in most cases.  Yet, some of my abilities become much stronger in those settings.</P> <P>Now, though I've said this before, I will continue to preach the good line regarding factually based arguments.  We're dealing with engineers, developers, and coders when we ask to be "fixed".  These are educated folk who are dealing with a universe which is founded and built upon numbers and facts.  When we discuss our damage or our healing or even our utility...these are all areas based upon factual supports.  I truly believe we can't just ignore that.</P> <P>Yes, opinions and feelings are important.  It gets attention and often inspires thinking on a subject.  Yet, it's not specific.  It's not based on those very facts that computer scientists, software developers, game theorists, statisticians, and game designers often rely upon.  RPG's are quite frequently reliant upon facts for balancing concerns.  </P> <P>Yes, the opinion of many Templars is that our healing is no longer "superior" to other classes.  A lot of this is based on perception.  Perception is arbitrary and often flawed, however.  Certainly we all feel our observations are valid, and yet most arguments on this and other forums are based almost entirely upon differences in opinion - differences in perspective.  We "see" things differently.  We "observe" differences in the same situations.  We "feel" differently about the same instances.</P> <P>Who's right?  Who's wrong?</P> <P>Arguments between players will always exist.  Arguments over what's right will always exist.  I'm not here to try to stop this...only to offer a continually different perspective.  I personally deal in facts when I'm working on arguments.  I do this because in the industry I'm in, the profession I follow within the "real world" is a fact based profession.  I'm a project manager for a hardware/software development firm.  Dealing with facts is what I know.  It's how I work with clients.  Sure, I can tell a client that I "think" we'll be done in three months with a particular site implementation...or I can build a project plan to show them why that's a correct assessment.  Sure, I can tell a director that I "feel" a particular rollout is going smoothly, or I can provide lists of reporting units, trained personnel, and working report structures.  We're not a huge firm, but we're growing, and frankly I like to think it's because we pay so much attention to the facts.</P> <P>If a customer tells me they don't like our product.  I'm going to ask why.  Sometimes, it's not even a problem with our product, but a problem with the expectations of the client.  I correct or restate the expectation, and suddenly there's no problem.  Nothing was changed in the product, but the customer's perception has been altered regarding what was seen to be an issue (which really wasn't).  It happens all the time.  Obviously, keeping a temperature on our customer base is important, but at the same time, if it's not really broken, I'm not going to rush to call engineering or development in to fix it.  Would you?  Would you halt production on a product or patch because a group of customers simply says something is broken...or will you take the time to test the issues you're hearing to see if it's really a problem?</P> <P>In one instance I had a customer swear our product was broken.  After some fairly involved testing, we discovered the problem was actually the customer's equipment which was breaking...which our product needed to operate.  We bypassed the customer's faulty unit and suddenly our product began to work consistently once more.  That customer spent days yelling at our tech support reps, our trainers, their supervisors, our directors, and yes, even me...before we finally found the problem wasn't even on our end.  It happens.  It happens a lot.</P> <P>This is not to say we're never wrong.  However, without facts to make our case, we can't <EM>know</EM> for certain.  If we simply took every customer's word for it that ever claimed our product was broken in some way, we'd never be able to get anything accomplished since we'd be locked up in constantly addressing each and every customer complaint in the worst possible way - by assuming the worst without testing to confirm.  </P> <P>Now, some customers do this more than others.  For all intents and purposes, they're crying wolf.  Every time they think they've found a problem, they're on the phone yelling at us about our product.  Most of the time, we're able to quickly find that the issue either is on their end, or that our product's working as intended and the customer's simply trying to use it incorrectly.  After a while, those customers become known to us as unreliable sources of information.  Quick to temper...quick to accuse...slow to understand what the actual problem is.  Every company has customer's like this.  I daresay Sony does as well.</P> <P>That's why I advocate fact based reporting.  That's why I try to stay out of the emotional arguments.  Most of the time it's just not productive to shout for the sake of being heard.  Yes, it's important that issues get resolved.  However, it's more important by my way of thinking to confirm that the issues are really issues first.  Otherwise, we're crying wolf every time someone sees a dachshund or beagle.</P> <P>Some very important issues get raised on this forum.  Some very important arguments have been made - both by those who tend to agree with me, and those who do not.  Templars have some issues, and I'd like to think that some of those issues are being addressed even now.  Yet, turning on each other, attacking each other, calling each other names, threatening to try to get this person or that person banned  - all because someone's expressing different opinions or presenting different facts?  Is that really productive?  Is that really solving the issue?</P> <P>I deal in facts.  Yes, that's annoying to some.  My personal style of posting rubs some the wrong way.  Yet, I'm not here to pick fights or put anyone down.  I'm just here to make sure the issues are really issues...and to clarify what I see as inaccurate or false.</P> <P>Facts are important.  Opinions are important.  My concern is that we don't confuse the two.</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>11-11-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:41 AM</span>

[Danter]

<DIV>From my view, people who don't parse and don't look at the numbers from all the classes are ignorant.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's really simple, parsers are there as a tool that you can use to have statistical evidence in what you are seeing in combat.  By not using parsers, you can clearly see what you're doing (the orange numbers), but you are completely blind from what everyone else is bringing to the table.  You wouldn't even know if Person C was afk with just autoattack on because the numbers appear so fast.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Saying Templars bring offense to a group is wrong, too.  We have 2 offensive based support spells, Rebuke and Sacred Redoubt.  Rebuke's effects basically increase the melee DPS of the group by about 15.  If your DPS is primarily composed of mages, Rebuke is a complete waste.  Sacred Redoubt increases the offensive skills of the target you have it on.  I have parsed this, and the +6 or so it gives is approximately equivalent to about +5-10 DPS of the target you have it on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So in a basic 6 man group with Templar, Scout,  Mage, Tank, Scout, and Mage; you have 3 melee classes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rebuke =>  3 x 15 = 45 DPS.</DIV> <DIV>Sacred Redoubt => 8 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templar raw DPS = 70 + 45 + 8 = 123 DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Add another Scout and drop a Mage and you get about 138 DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>138 DPS is still above and beyond the lowest DPS in the game out of every class.  Most of the other classes that are shown in parses do not take into consideration the offensive buffs/defensive debuffs they bring.  If you factor that in, Templars are at yet another disadvantage.  Damage shields that Druids get adds more DPS then both these skills combined.  Guardians are the lowest fighter DPS and they can easily hit 130 DPS while tanking in defensive stance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And by the way, Templar healing is not above and beyond every other priest's healing abilities like Pre LU 13.  Replace the Templar with a Warden and you'd barely notice a difference, if one at all in healing.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Danterus on <span class=date_text>11-11-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:03 AM</span>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Danterus wrote:<BR> <DIV>From my view, people who don't parse and don't look at the numbers from all the classes are ignorant.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's really simple, parsers are there as a tool that you can use to have statistical evidence in what you are seeing in combat.  By not using parsers, you can clearly see what you're doing (the orange numbers), but you are completely blind from what everyone else is bringing to the table.  You wouldn't even know if Person C was afk with just autoattack on because the numbers appear so fast.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Saying Templars bring offense to a group is wrong, too.  We have 2 offensive based support spells, Rebuke and Sacred Redoubt.  Rebuke's effects basically increase the melee DPS of the group by about 15.  If your DPS is primarily composed of mages, Rebuke is a complete waste.  Sacred Redoubt increases the offensive skills of the target you have it on.  I have parsed this, and the +6 or so it gives is approximately equivalent to about +5-10 DPS of the target you have it on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So in a basic 6 man group with Templar, Scout,  Mage, Tank, Scout, and Mage; you have 3 melee classes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rebuke =>  3 x 15 = 45 DPS.</DIV> <DIV>Sacred Redoubt => 8 DPS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templar raw DPS = 70 + 45 + 8 = 113 DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Add another Scout and drop a Mage and you get about 128 DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>133 DPS is still above and beyond the lowest DPS in the game out of every class.  Most of the other classes that are shown in parses do not take into consdieration the offensive buffs/defensive debuffs they bring.  If you factor that in, Templars are at yet another disadvantage.  Damage shields that Druids get adds more DPS then both these skills combined.  Guardians are the lowest fighter DPS and they can easily hit 130 DPS while tanking in defensive stance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And by the way, Templar healing is not above and beyond every other priest's healing abilities like Pre LU 13.  Replace the Templar with a Warden and you'd barely notice a difference, if one at all in healing.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Danterus on <SPAN class=date_text>11-11-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:59 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>That's not been my own observations.  I've personally parsed groups with 3 scouts that increased DPS by around 10-20%.  If I only saw a 15 point (not percentage) difference in DPS, I wouldn't waste the time casting the spell.  Then again, I'm curious as to how a spell which lowers mitigation by around 500 is somehow only producing a gain of 15 DPS...or even how someone would measure that small of an increase.  </P> <P>Scout DPS can vary by much more than 15 points from battle to battle.  Even in consistent pull situations, where fights are virtually identical, I rarely see scouts within 15 or even 50 points of a previous fight's DPS numbers.   The scouts I've been grouping with consistently pull down 300-600 DPS over the course of typical fights, with the ability to situationally spike to well over 1000 DPS.  </P> <P> </P>

[zorbdan]

<P>You guys have just proven my point about parsing.</P> <P> </P> <DIV>''Parsing just doesn't tell the whole story, with all the variables that can occur in the game it is not an accurate way to demonstrate the value, functionality, purpose or effectivness of any given class.''</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One person shows a parse or log that demonstrates one thing, then someone else comes along with a parse or log that demonstrates something totally different because the variables have been changed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The thing I want to point out is most people don't take all the variables into account. For instance templars do have another spell that can affect dps- praoratate ( sp ) it buffs strength. The point is, it is almost impossible to take every variable into account. Throw facts at me all day long, at the end of day I still know what I knew at the begining of the day, which is.. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templars don't have good damage and don't heal any better than any other healing class. This puts them at a disadvantage, they are a weak class now and no form of parsing or facts can change my opinion. </DIV> <P>Message Edited by zorbdan on <SPAN class=date_text>11-11-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:02 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by zorbdan on <span class=date_text>11-11-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:10 PM</span>

[Sleet_Levanter]

<P><SPAN>Kendricke,</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>As a software engineer I appreciate your commitment to gathering facts and data regarding the perceived plight of the templar class.  It is far easier to determine where a potential issue lies when one has the data to analyze.  Keep up the great work in promoting fact based arguments.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>However, Sony Online Entertainment is a business and their bottom line is and will always be how much money they are making.  Business decisions are rarely made by the engineers.  As a business, SOE will cater to their customers' needs and wants.  It is not the engineers who analyze market demands.  Marketing people make good money determining the needs and wants of the market and their potential customers.  The needs and wants of the customers are communicated to engineering and there is a collaboration to determine how a company and feasibly meet the demands of the customers with their product.  I heard it said once by a marketing guy that, "Perception is reality" when it comes to customers.  How the customers perceive the product sometimes has little to do with what the product actually is or how well it performs, but it has a lot to do with whether the customers will shell out their money to pay for it.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>If you had a particular demographic of customer that became unhappy and complained about a change you made to your product, would you ask them as a group to provide you with the numbers and data proving to you that the change you made had a negative impact on them?  It is nice when a customer will do that for you, but the responsibility of investigating and determining the root cause of an issue is not theirs.  I work on customizing BIOS code for single board computers all day at work (when I am not perusing through these forums.)  When I play EQ2, I want to have fun and enjoy myself.  I do not want to analyze the data from parses or try to debug the issues I perceive my class as having.  It is not my job to analyze the numbers or to even gather the data for SOE.  If their engineers cannot find the root cause of the problem and fix it to the satisfaction of their customers, they risk losing some customers.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Certainly, the engineers work with numbers and data when analyzing issues and determining potential solutions, but before they get to work on any issue it has to make its way to the top of the priority list.  Issues tend to make their ways to the top of the priority list based on how they affect a business's income.  A business's income depends on how well its product satisfies their customers and a customer's satisfaction is based on his/her perception of the product.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I appreciate that you feel that both facts and opinions are important, but please do not underestimate the importance of perception.  A company may have the best product in the world, but people will not buy the product if it is perceived as being no good to them.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I am sure the engineers will appreciate your numbers and parses and the numbers will certainly help to make the case for change, but I believe change is more likely to come from the un-analytical outcry of a particular customer base than from the numbers.  I encourage anyone who enjoys parsing the numbers and analyzing the data to do so.  I also encourage people to express how the "feel" of the templar class is not right.  Parses and data will assist in making the case for change and perhaps in determining what changes need to be made, but it is the perception and feelings of templars that will give this issue the weight it needs to get attention.  Please do not discourage people from posting how they "feel" about the current state of templars and asking them to prove every point they make by backing it up with parsed numbers.  I understand that it may or may not be an exaggeration for someone to say it took them five minutes to solo a single average green con mob.  If that is how it "felt" to them, I consider that to be more important than seeing a parse that tells us that it really only took them 2.268 minutes to solo that mob.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>With that said, I do feel the need to say that rational level-headed arguments regarding perception and the "feel" of the game will be taken more seriously than any those that overly exaggerate the point, become overly defensive, or digress into flames.  Even those arguments, though, have some value in that they express the extreme unhappiness of the customer (even if the point may sometimes get lost.)</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>As for me, it no longer feels fun to play my templar since LU13, particularly when it comes to soloing.  I have implied in other posts that I think three particular changes are big contributors to this.  They are the improved rationing of power by the mobs, the diminished avoidance of plate wearing classes, and the loss of riposte by priest classes.  Soloing took a long time for templars before LU13.  With the combat changes it now takes too long for me to get any enjoyment out of it, so I am temporarily retiring my templar and am experimenting with a couple of alts.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I did not intend for this post to be this long and I apologize for that.  I just do not believe that numbers alone are going to facilitate change.  Perception is far more important than I believe it gets credit for.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>For the record, I do appreciate your efforts in presenting factual arguments to the developers and designers of EQ2.  When it gets down to the nuts and bolts of the issue the facts are going to be a requirement of any well constructed persuasive argument.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>Thank you,</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P>

[Kendricke]

<DIV>Zorbdan,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just because two people differ on which facts or fact set is important, I'd still personally prefer to handle someone who's at least attempting to work with facts than someone who's not.  Please reference my earlier post regarding customer complaints for more on why I feel the way I do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I understand that parsing is work.  I understand that not everyone likes parsing.  I can even understand that not everyone wants to deal with hard facts.  That's perfectly fine.  What I want others to understand is that if you make a claim that I can't understand or that I feel is erroneous, I'm going to try to challenge that claim utilizing the best means I know how - factual testing.  I may not be testing under ideal controlled circumstances, but I'm at least able to test <EM>something </EM>to support my conclusions.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I can appreciate that not every Templar feels the same way about our class as I do.  In fact, I'd venture that's the one thing we can all agree on - that no one seems to agree completely with each other.  Some argue from a higher level perspective while others argue from a lower level.  Some argue from a soloer standpoint and others from a grouping or raiding standpoint.  Some have other priests to compare against.  Others do not.  Some argue facts and numbers while others argue from a more emotional or observational stance.  I'd wager that if you asked 10 different Templars how they felt about any one part of the game, you'd likely end up with 11 different answers.  It's just the way of things in many cases.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I will say that I personally try to speak in a language that I hope the developers can hear and understand, which is to say addressing issues with suggestions and pointing to my personal findings to support my arguments on why this or that should or should not be changed...and how.  It's just my way.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>11-11-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:22 PM</span>

[KingOfF00LS]

<span><blockquote><hr>zorbdan wrote:<div></div> <div></div>  <div>One person shows a parse or log that demonstrates one thing, then someone else comes along with a parse or log that demonstrates something totally different because the variables have been changed.</div> <div> </div> <hr></blockquote>You are, of course, correct.  That's the way it's always been and the way it will always be.  Parses are interesting toys (to some people interesting), but you'll never get the true fact or feel of an EQ character through a parse.  Beware of anyone who claims they only want facts then uses parses to manipulate the data to "prove" a point. At any rate, as has been said numerous times you can't parse fun.  In the end, parses are worthless.  This is a game, and never has a parse been run that could determine if a game was fun. </span><div></div>

[Copperha]

<P>Sleet_Levanter,</P> <P>Bravo. Hit the ole nail dead on the head mate. Nice post. I too hope one day they make my templar fun to play again. In the meantime, I am really enjoying 'life' as a Ranger.</P>

[BenEm]

<P>**REMOVED FLAME BAIT**<BR></FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-11-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:12 PM</span>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KingOfF00LS wrote:<BR><SPAN>Beware of anyone who claims they only want facts then uses parses to manipulate the data to "prove" a point.</SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I agree.  It's one reason I often make the distinction that facts and opinions are both good to present...so long as they are not confused with one another.</P> <P><BR> </P>

[javis]

<P>I concur, Sleet_Levanter's reply is one of the best posts I have seen in a while.</P> <P>well done,</P> <P>-Izzy</P> <p>Message Edited by javis on <span class=date_text>11-11-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:22 PM</span>

[zorbdan]

<P>Talk about perception, facts and opinions doesn't change my opinion on the the situation much. </P> <P>Solo - Templars : One of the most ineffective classes in the game. Due to an inability to produce damage they are at a huge disadvantage compared to other classes.</P> <P>Group - Templars : Valuable yes, but clearly not the best at any one role or most viable class out there. Healing is thier ONLY strong point and they are basically equal in that aspect to the other classes whos role is healing.</P> <P>Raid - Templars : Valuable yes, with certain archtype specific spells that have a viable use in raid situations they have thier niche on the raid roster.    </P> <DIV>To conclude, solo is not effective, grouping we are a secondary choice to other priest classes and raiding we are needed for some of our specific skills. This all adds up to us being nothing more than bench warmers who are only useful under a specific set of circumstances.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is currently our role and we need to just accept it as such or choose not to be Templars.</DIV>

[Takeo1]

<P>It shouldnt change - numbers can be twisted into knots very easily, and the two of these guys just proved it.</P> <P> </P> <P>" My parser reads blah-blah-blah"</P> <P>"I must disagree, my parser reads blah-blah-blah"</P> <P> </P> <P>Your subjective, and honest analysis is always gonna be the best way...to hell with numbers. And as far as the perception thing goes...thats what people are talking about, if one-hundred people see that colour as red, and one guy says its orange, is it orange or red? Was the world flat or round? Is the [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] sun gonna rise? Well is it? </P> <P> </P> <P>Tell those chico malos with the numbers, hey! Show me with numbers that the sun is gonna rise, that its even in orbit around us right now at night-time, or that your mama still makes the best banana-nut bread. Prove it! With numbers...</P> <P> </P> <P>Yeah - thats what I thought...same bs. You cant do it. And you cant do it here. Bah.</P> <P> </P> <P>Lates.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> KingOfF00LS wrote:<span>Beware of anyone who claims they only want facts then uses parses to manipulate the data to "prove" a point.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <>I agree.  It's one reason I often make the distinction that facts and opinions are both good to present...so long as they are not confused with one another.<> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Talk about double standards lol. When will you stop bringing group to every single discussion there is about templars low solo DPS? Grouping has absolutely nothing to do with soloing and people do agree with you that we are as good as any other healer when grouping. Now while my templar might add even 200 to 300dps to a group with buffs and debuffs, the fact is that I still solo as slowly as before. Those debuffs add about 15 to 20 dps when I solo. So take your own advice.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>zorbdan wrote: <div>To conclude, solo is not effective, grouping we are a secondary choice to other priest classes and raiding we are needed for some of our specific skills. This all adds up to us being nothing more than bench warmers who are only useful under a specific set of circumstances.</div> <div> </div> <div>This is currently our role and we need to just accept it as such or choose not to be Templars.</div><hr></blockquote>Yes. And take note that every raid 'needs' one templar and one templar only. Our main heals do not stack, our single target heals are slow to cast and our utility heals dont work out of group. In addition our group healing capability is very poor, so taking a templar to deal with AoE's is suicide. Thus just one templar per raid. </span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KingOfF00LS wrote:<BR><SPAN>Beware of anyone who claims they only want facts then uses parses to manipulate the data to "prove" a point.</SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><>I agree.  It's one reason I often make the distinction that facts and opinions are both good to present...so long as they are not confused with one another.<><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Talk about double standards lol. <BR><BR>When will you stop bringing group to every single discussion there is about templars low solo DPS? Grouping has absolutely nothing to do with soloing and people do agree with you that we are as good as any other healer when grouping.<BR><BR>Now while my templar might add even 200 to 300dps to a group with buffs and debuffs, the fact is that I still solo as slowly as before. Those debuffs add about 15 to 20 dps when I solo.<BR><BR>So take your own advice.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Please don't misrepresent what I've stated in other arguments.  I've admitted on many occasions that Templar's have the lowest DPS.  In addition, I've brought up several ideas on what I'd like to see for increasing a soloing Templar's DPS.  Self-only holy aura damage shield...bringing back the cleric hammer pet...including a yaulp effect on our Mark line...and more...</P> <P><BR> </P>

[BenEm]

<P>Great to see people are starting to see you can parse till your blue in the face and parse to make data look like you want it to look to back up just about anything you want to percieve is true reguardless of if it is or not . Bottom line is Temps are upset and still quiting in groves or moving on to new Chars. Personally  I dont think SoE can get those players back anymore ( hopefully they didnt leave altogether and are just trying something new ) so there is really no use to even try . All we have left is to try and keep what is left of active Templars just that ...an active and viable class .</P> <P>Something we all need to be very aware of here is the fact that they can only give you so much . What I mean by that is many are talking about how bad we are solo , well we werent real good before, we never will be and they cant change that much because the real issue here is PvP balance . PvP balance is the root for all these changes and I for one am unhappy about what it did to our community . Parse on but it wont change much and keep in mind I can run a parse, coach a few people in my group and make it show I the mighty Templar can output the most DPS of any class ever .  LOL yes that would be going way overboard ....but keep in mind it could be done . When looking at data from a parse one must keep in mind what the person doing the parsing is trying to accomplish . Some people are very adament about proving there view to have fact behind it .<FONT color=#ff0066>Reality has it that the only parsing you could trust would have to be done on a group that didnt even know they were being parsed and that is the true fact you need to know about parsing and the only true fact .</FONT></P> <P>Have fun with your Templar ! I still do !  Grant it I split my time between my Temp, my Fury and ,My Armoring  but I truley still love my Temp . Templars healing still rocks and I have 0 probs keeping a group up but do keep in mind Equiptment and spell upgrades are ultimately important now ( which I love ) .  </P>

[Grimhamm]

<DIV>Well, I do not need a parser to read this forum and see a lot of unhappy people.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I log in my templar to do tailoring, and friends ask why I'm not online much anymore.  I explain that templars have no role beyond group healing anymore, we're not much better than other healers, and we have nothing special to bring beyond healing to the fight.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And when those friends agree and add they have heard that from other templars, I do not pull out my parser, lol.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[BenEm]

Unfortunately Grim ...thats the Grim truth :smileywink: sorry about the bad pun .

[SenorPhrog]

<span><blockquote><hr>Grimhammer wrote:<div>Well, I do not need a parser to read this forum and see a lot of unhappy people.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>I log in my templar to do tailoring, and friends ask why I'm not online much anymore.  I explain that templars have no role beyond group healing anymore, we're not much better than other healers, and we have nothing special to bring beyond healing to the fight.</div> <div> </div> <div>And when those friends agree and add they have heard that from other templars, I do not pull out my parser, lol.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div><hr></blockquote>I'm not disagreeing with you but I really hope you've got more sense than to put too much stock into what you read around here (from both sides of it). I'm a little confused by one of your statements  though.  I can't really think of when Templars really did have a role beyond group healing, so maybe you can elaborate on that for me.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> BenEmma wrote:<BR> <P>Great to see people are starting to see you can parse till your blue in the face and parse to make data look like you want it to look to back up just about anything you want to percieve is true reguardless of if it is or not . Bottom line is Temps are upset and still quiting in groves or moving on to new Chars.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>If you tell a developer that Templars can't heal as much as other classes and that developer goes and runs some tests and performs a few dozen/hundred/thousand parses across servers and determines that the facts don't back up the accusation, what do you think the developer is going to do?  <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Prior to the revamp, I'd be willing to wager that there were more Templars than any other two priest classes combined.  At the very least, it was commonly held belief that Templars were the most popular priest class.  We were the path of least resistance.  We were practically guaranteed group slots.  We were always able to find a healing role in any group or raid. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, was this intended?  Was that the way the game was supposed to be?  Pre-launch documentation and developer statements indicated that this was not supposed to be the way of it.  All priests were supposed to be able to fill a minimum healing role in a group.  The problem was that Templars were so far and away better at healing than other priests that other priests often did not get a chance to do more than join in as a "back up" healer. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, is it any surprise that many Templars are changing classes?  Truly, is this some sort of surprise?  Before, many players would have preferred to play as this class or that class, but for the most part, Templar was chosen because we were the path of least resistance - greatest reward for least risk.  Certainly that was a general perception by many players of the Templar class - we brought more raw healing than any other class, and therefore groups only required one Templar, instead of two "lesser priests". </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There's too many Templars right now, in my opinion. There always has been, but before, it wasn't an issue because we were more powerful as healers - much, much more powerful.  Now, we're only better.  We're no longer gods among mortals.  We're relegated back to "just better" status.  It's the same issue facing Warlocks and Guardians - classes that were previously kings of their own hills...who now must compete against the rest of their archetypes for group and raid positions with the new "flavors of the month".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'll admit that most players likely don't care about the numbers.  On that, we agree.  However, "most players" aren't the developers...and the developers <EM>do</EM> care about the numbers.  "Most players" can't change the game's code.  Developers can.  Given the choice between trying to convince other players of a thing or trying to convince the developers, I know where I'd prefer to put my focus. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Mayl]

Hi all, fellow Templar here. Some of our bugs have been fixed (did not notice when, so I am sorry I can not point that out), like the reactives. When a mob would hit a group member (or yourself) and the reactive failed to go off. Lasnight, I did not see this happen once. I was impressed. Though Templar is a pure healer. Thats why I picked one from the begining.  I am not worried about more dps. I am not a tank. I am not a pure caster. I am not a scout that should be asking for more dps. I am a Templar. I am a pure healer. I am a one trick pony. I am what I wanted to be. Undeniable, a healer. Pure and simple. Am I saying there is nothing wrong with our class? No. We are broke. Heals come to mind. Now, before anyone gets in an uproar. I think the recast times could be tweeked. When the scout/(insert subclass here) grabs aggro, they are toast. The mobs are hitting for far to much than the heals can make up for in the recast time given. The way I setup when an encounter is made is, group reactive (heals for more per hit than a single target reactive, which I find strange), Mark, Invulintary(sp?) line, debuff (cant think of the name of it. cracked armorer icon), big heal, small heal, refresh group reactive as needed. If someone can point out a better setup for me, I am all ears. But with this way of doing things,  Scout  is garrunteed to fall If they grab aggro and the tank cant get it back. The recast time on the straight heals is to high. I think mit needs to be looked into as well. I wear plate armor. Not paper. I think I take as much damage with armor on than if I had no armor on at all. Interrupts and Fizzle rates are through the roof. I think we all agree on that. So it really needs looked into. Thats all I can think of atm. (still working on my coffeee. let me wakeup a little more and will probabaly have more for you). <div></div>

[BenEm]

<DIV> Kendricke  , knowing that Parsing can be so easily scued in the direction of ones agenda asures the fact that Devs wont take a players parse seriously . So why bother ?  Again parsing can be extreamly usefull if the Devs are doing the parsing on groups that dont know its being done . Parsing by players can only be viewed as I wanna be right and I will do anything I can to prove it . However  parsing by players is fine when that player is doing it for his own knowledge or wants some sort of piece of mind or wants to use it for tactics but posting those findings on public boards to back up arguments is as convincing as me telling someone I have a pocket full of 3 dollar bills . Again its extreamly easy to scue a parse to show Templars have the highest dps of any class with some coaching to group members and the fact that it gets posted in text , but it wont convince anybody that it is truley the case now would it ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again me and you are much closer in our opinion of Temps than anyone would probably even believe based on our posts :smileywink:  None the less people are leaving the Temp class in groves and unlike you I am not so sure its to try another char . From the best I can tell for my server about 50 % of those people I know that quit playing their Temp havent come back at all . I am on an already lightly loaded server . At this point it is healer starved server to the point of : If your a healer of any class you get constant pleas for help. </DIV><p>Message Edited by BenEmma on <span class=date_text>11-14-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:16 AM</span>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> BenEmma wrote:<BR> <DIV> Kendricke  , knowing that Parsing can be so easily scued in the direction of ones agenda asures the fact that Devs wont take a players parse seriously . So why bother ? </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If they won't take a parse seriously from a player, why then would they suddenly take that player's unsupported accusations more seriously?  </P> <P>I'm discussing claims (some made multiple times by multiple players) that Templar soloing takes 5 minutes per kill; that Furies can consistently pull in 500 DPS as a main healer; that Glory of Combat is "useless"; that Templars are fizzling "40 times" in a fight; and so on.  It's ridiculously easy to disprove some of these claims.  As a case in point, I was recently berated - twice - in a different discussion for claiming that Reverence did not have a 10 minute recast timer and that Back into the Fray did not heal for more than 2000 points.  Even after posting links to information I was told I was incorrect.  In fact, after posting direct in-game screenshots I was told I was incorrect.</P> <P>Facts remain that the parses, when honestly performed, are accurate for the situations they are in - or as accurate as we can gage on our end as players.  The alternative to parsing or using factually based arguments is to present purely speculative or opinion based arguments - which are good for expressing a general "feel" for a thing, but horrible at arguing numbers and direct spell line comparisons.</P> <P>If you want to argue that, for example, Templar DPS is too low when soloing, back it with facts.  It may not be a parse, but use actual numbers - honest numbers.  Don't go try to autoattack a blue up arrow and then claim it takes 5 minutes for all Templars to solo a blue con.  At the very least, expect to see differing numbers from other Templars who can refute your numbers.</P> <P>One person's parse of one fight or even a series of fights isn't going to be taken as gospel.  That's why you need as many different sources of information as possible over as wide an array as possible.  If someone says that they can only increase DPS by "15 damage", I'm going to see if that's the same numbers I'm seeing.  Hopefully others do the same.  Somewhere between one extreme and the other, there's the real answer.  </P> <P>It's important that we aren't all getting the same numbers.  That, in and of itself, shows a wide diversity in our actions - either from a player/character ability stance or from a parsing stance.  It's not bad that our numbers don't always match.  Actually, that's a good thing from an overall perspective.  </P> <P><BR> </P>

[bigmak20]

parsing is good etc. It's the Gameplay.  That's what's missed in parses and the variable in the "fun" debate. I've thought about it more then I should and here's my conclusion: Most fights whether they're solo or questing, small groups, exp grinding groups -- take 30 seconds or less.  We all know this to be true. When it takes a Templar over a minute (60, 75, 90 seconds, depending on your level and Int gear at the time) and it takes other classes 30 seconds or less then it isn't fun.  And when most fights even in groups take 30 seconds or less -- it isn't fun. <b>A REAL, USABLE, APPLICABLE TO GAME PLAY parse would measure DPS as delivered over 30 seconds</b> -- that's the statistic that matters when measuring "fun" since that's how most of your time is spent. We know how high some priests DPS can be in a 30 seconds compared to a Templars -- and when you figure in interrupt rates in plate, etc, it gets laughable.  This is a legitimate and viable problem that needs to be looked into and it is apparently not that obvious when developers are looking at DPS as measured over long times or when doing a number to number comparison of spells -- which we all know show everyone somewhat balanced. It doesn't pan out in a 30 second or less (sometimes significantly less) fight. Let's take an example of SOE reacting (properly) to gameplay being different then numbers on spells or parses -->  Regens were dialed up a lot so those priests would heal for enough over shorter time to manage burst damage more easily.  Wasn't the solution to double the heal amount but heal for fewer ticks?  On paper that makes them the uber healer -- but it's a solution that makes sense in gameplay. Why can't Templars get similar consideration with respect to  DPS? Parses aren't the answer the answer is for the developers to look at how the game PLAYS.  The adjustment to regens is a good example of applying that thinking imo.

[BenEm]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> BenEmma wrote:<BR> <DIV> Kendricke  , knowing that Parsing can be so easily scued in the direction of ones agenda asures the fact that Devs wont take a players parse seriously . So why bother ? </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If they won't take a parse seriously from a player, why then would they suddenly take that player's unsupported accusations more seriously?  </P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000> Agreed 100% they shouldnt take either seriously ! For Devs this area should be looked at for suggestions and a temprature of the community so to speak . My guess is their way way ahead of us in this department . </FONT></P> <P>I'm discussing claims (some made multiple times by multiple players) that Templar soloing takes 5 minutes per kill; that Furies can consistently pull in 500 DPS as a main healer; that Glory of Combat is "useless"; that Templars are fizzling "40 times" in a fight; and so on.  It's ridiculously easy to disprove some of these claims.  As a case in point, I was recently berated - twice - in a different discussion for claiming that Reverence did not have a 10 minute recast timer and that Back into the Fray did not heal for more than 2000 points.  Even after posting links to information I was told I was incorrect.  In fact, after posting direct in-game screenshots I was told I was incorrect.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Not a players job to discount others claims or beliefs. That is for the Devs to straighten out and decide if its true or not, and again for them to decide if i fits to their goals for a class. A goal only they know and not a player ! When players do it we can see the result ........ One split and very unhappy community of like  peers .</FONT></P> <P>Facts remain that the parses, when honestly performed, are accurate for the situations they are in - or as accurate as we can gage on our end as players.  The alternative to parsing or using factually based arguments is to present purely speculative or opinion based arguments - which are good for expressing a general "feel" for a thing, but horrible at arguing numbers and direct spell line comparisons.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>And the key word here is Honestly . Now lets be Honest with ourselves and realize their is not one good reason on gods green earth that anyone here can truley trust the other with the exception of RL friends that have known each other for at least a couple of years and happen to play this game together . At 40 years old I can count the # of people I know I can truley trust and depend on with one hand , yet when I have a party hundreds of friends and family members do show up . </FONT></P> <P>If you want to argue that, for example, Templar DPS is too low when soloing, back it with facts.  It may not be a parse, but use actual numbers - honest numbers.  Don't go try to autoattack a blue up arrow and then claim it takes 5 minutes for all Templars to solo a blue con.  At the very least, expect to see differing numbers from other Templars who can refute your numbers.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Agreed but a parse cannot be viewed  as a fact unless its done by a compleately unbias source on a group that has no Idea their being parsed. Otherwise reguardless of intent be it good or not so good ,  reguardless of charactor be it good or not ,   people by mere human nature will do things while in a group knowing its being parsed (espeacially if they know what is being looked for in said parse ) they wouldnt normally do if they were not being parsed. </FONT></P> <P>One person's parse of one fight or even a series of fights isn't going to be taken as gospel.  That's why you need as many different sources of information as possible over as wide an array as possible.  If someone says that they can only increase DPS by "15 damage", I'm going to see if that's the same numbers I'm seeing.  Hopefully others do the same.  Somewhere between one extreme and the other, there's the real answer.  </P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>All fine and good parse away it can be very usefull as a player . Just dont believe for second it holds as a fact or even backup to an argument made in text and viewed by people with a variety of opinions , at that point its no more credible than my pocket that I swear is packed with 3 dollar bills ...no really it is ! <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></FONT></P> <P>It's important that we aren't all getting the same numbers.  That, in and of itself, shows a wide diversity in our actions - either from a player/character ability stance or from a parsing stance.  It's not bad that our numbers don't always match.  Actually, that's a good thing from an overall perspective.  </P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Again they never will match because of  everything I posted above.  Until they are done unbiasly and without the group knowing and done a couple of hundred times and than averaged the parse is just another opinion. You cannot pull the bias and change of SoP's  from a group that knows its being parsed .</FONT></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>My responces are in red .<BR>

[BenEm]

<DIV>"Why can't Templars get similar consideration with respect to  DPS?"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Because it will screw up PvP and it just wont happen because of that and that alone . Have you dueled yet ? I can come dam close to beating any  Pally 2 levs above me . The good ones can beat me by a thread after about a 15 minute battle , the bad ones are toast .<BR></DIV>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> BenEmma wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Not a players job to discount others claims or beliefs. That is for the Devs to straighten out and decide if its true or not, and again for them to decide if i fits to their goals for a class. A goal only they know and not a player ! When players do it we can see the result ........ One split and very unhappy community of like  peers .</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Perhaps I have a different perspective for various reasons, but I'm going to disagree with your statement that it is "<EM>not a players job to discount others claims</EM>".  No claim is a sacred cow here, unfit for peer review and criticism.  Just posting a statement here does not immediately invalidate any possible countering statements based on the premise that it's the job of the developers to correct false statements. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> BenEmma wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>If they won't take a parse seriously from a player, why then would they suddenly take that player's unsupported accusations more seriously?  </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></P> <HR>  Agreed 100% they shouldnt take either seriously ! For Devs this area should be looked at for suggestions and a temprature of the community so to speak . My guess is their way way ahead of us in this department . </BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Developers have asked for parses on these forums.  Moorgard's actually recommended using Combat Stats in particular.  At the June Summit, I had conversations with many developers who admitted that they look for parses and factual posts on the forums.  They were able to point to specific instances of such parsing leading to changes in the game. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> BenEmma wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>And the key word here is Honestly . Now lets be Honest with ourselves and realize their is not one good reason on gods green earth that anyone here can truley trust the other with the exception of RL friends that have known each other for at least a couple of years and happen to play this game together . At 40 years old I can count the # of people I know I can truley trust and depend on with one hand , yet when I have a party hundreds of friends and family members do show up . </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>The developers I know on these forums seem to have a knack for picking out the "wolf criers", in my opinion.  I think they're perfectly capable of determining which information is false or intellectually dishonest and which ones deserve a second read.  Maybe that's my posts - maybe not.  The point is that if you honestly believe you're trying to provide good source data, then I believe you probably are. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> BenEmma wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Agreed but a parse cannot be viewed  as a fact unless its done by a compleately unbias source on a group that has no Idea their being parsed. Otherwise reguardless of intent be it good or not so good ,  reguardless of charactor be it good or not ,   people by mere human nature will do things while in a group knowing its being parsed (espeacially if they know what is being looked for in said parse ) they wouldnt normally do if they were not being parsed. </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Again, as I stated, if you believe you're providing good data, then you probably are.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> BenEmma wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>All fine and good parse away it can be very usefull as a player . Just dont believe for second it holds as a fact or even backup to an argument made in text and viewed by people with a variety of opinions , at that point its no more credible than my pocket that I swear is packed with 3 dollar bills ...no really it is ! <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR>You don't have to believe in parses.  You can ignore them.  Per your own argument, you feel it's not up to players to discount each other's arguments anyway.  If that's the case, then there's no reason to pay anyone else's parses a second thought.  If the developers truly do not care for player parses, then there's no reason to even give a second thought to those of us that provide such information, both publically and privately. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, I believe the parses are important.  I believe this because the developers have outright stated that they look at parses, and they've actually recommended specific applications to use.  To be frank, I never parsed before Moorgard specifically suggested using Combat Stats for the purpose.  It was based on a developer request for parses that I started to parse in the first place. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Skydude]

<DIV>Thats the funny thing Ken. What are you getting out of it? A personal education? Money kick backs? Future employment? I agree parsing is somewhat neccessary and I do it on occassion to prove my own point or to just plain and simple know for myself something that I personally may need to know as a raid leader.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Who in their right mind is going to conduct some of the parses that you have done? 3 scout classes in a group? lol what scenario is this going to benefit anyone in? I'll give you that a pick up group may end up with that particular composition, but your parsing Templar dps with 3 scouts [Removed for Content].</DIV>

[BenEm]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Skydude wrote:<BR> <DIV>Thats the funny thing Ken. What are you getting out of it? A personal education? Money kick backs? Future employment? I agree parsing is somewhat neccessary and I do it on occassion to prove my own point or to just plain and simple know for myself something that I personally may need to know as a raid leader.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Really now lets not insult peoples intelligence what does he get ??? Well his Vision of what a Templar should be of course !  Otherwise their would be 0 posts in all the class Forums . Yes some people do take a game more seriously than others thats no suprise .</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Who in their right mind is going to conduct some of the parses that you have done? 3 scout classes in a group? lol what scenario is this going to benefit anyone in? I'll give you that a pick up group may end up with that particular composition, but your parsing Templar dps with 3 scouts [Removed for Content].</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Someone who is being bashed by the masses may very well make up, scue or even alter data in order to prove they are right please dont act as if that is such a stretch or uncommon in human nature . Heck  2 bi partisan commitees 14 Resolutions and multiple nations intell all saying the same and we still have people that believe Bush cooked intel. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I am in no way implying that is what happens here but it sure is why I would never even read a parse that wasent posted by a Dev and even if a Dev did post it I would have many questions on how they went about it before I would except it as gospell .</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[BenEm]

<DIV><BR> <DIV>"Perhaps I have a different perspective for various reasons, but I'm going to disagree with your statement that it is "<EM>not a players job to discount others claims</EM>".  No claim is a sacred cow here, unfit for peer review and criticism.  Just posting a statement here does not immediately invalidate any possible countering statements based on the premise that it's the job of the developers to correct false statements. "</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Hey some people like a split community of like peers,  some dont, and some really love it :smileywink:   One thing is for sure and that is no one can argue that discounting your peers percieved problems /dislikes / or complaints is the fastest route to a community that will be split and arguing that's a no brainer !</FONT></DIV></DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <div>Developers have asked for parses on these forums.  Moorgard's actually recommended using Combat Stats in particular.  At the June Summit, I had conversations with many developers who admitted that they look for parses and factual posts on the forums.  They were able to point to specific instances of such parsing leading to changes in the game. </div> <hr></blockquote>Here is a parse for you from last night. My templar does steady 70dps when grouping as only healer as lvl 55 templar (though I need to spam the nukes and heal when they are down). I can make 150dps while soloing if all goes as planned by HO's and good timing, in groups this is difficult. Lvl 51 fury did 200 to 250dps while keeping another group alive when I logged to my monk. </span><span>With my templars group, we did Sanctorium and with my monk, we went to attack the towers in Maj'Dul.</span><span> So things conned white to low yellow for me and mid yellow to the fury. Both they fury and my templar have all adept III skills. Even my lvl 49 monk did twice the dps my templar can do and the 54's we fought conned orange so I missed over 30% of my CA's and autoattacks. This was measured with combatstats you so much admire and it is a fact, not an opinion.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: <DIV>Developers have asked for parses on these forums.  Moorgard's actually recommended using Combat Stats in particular.  At the June Summit, I had conversations with many developers who admitted that they look for parses and factual posts on the forums.  They were able to point to specific instances of such parsing leading to changes in the game.<BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Here is a parse for you from last night. My templar does steady 70dps when grouping as only healer as lvl 55 templar (though I need to spam the nukes and heal when they are down). I can make 150dps while soloing if all goes as planned by HO's and good timing, in groups this is difficult. Lvl 51 fury did 200 to 250dps while keeping another group alive when I logged to my monk. </SPAN><SPAN>With my templars group, we did Sanctorium and with my monk, we went to attack the towers in Maj'Dul.</SPAN><SPAN> So things conned white to low yellow for me and mid yellow to the fury. Both they fury and my templar have all adept III skills. <BR><BR>Even my lvl 49 monk did twice the dps my templar can do and the 54's we fought conned orange so I missed over 30% of my CA's and autoattacks.<BR><BR>This was measured with combatstats you so much admire and it is a fact, not an opinion.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Ok, so you've confirmed what we've been saying all along...that Templars have lower DPS than Furies or Fighters.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>11-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:44 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <p>Ok, so you've confirmed what we've been saying all along...that Templars have lower DPS than Furies or Fighters.</p><hr></blockquote>I see you missed the part where he also kept the group healed as well as my templar while doing that dps. You also missed the fact that _you_ have not been saying that all along. You agreed to it after your view was proven false. Now you are trying to claim it as your own idea. I have seen you present ideas as your own after reading someone else post them. In fact, I have yet to see some original idea from you, all you have been doing has been repeating "we are fine with groups" to every argument about soloing. I would also like to see how templar 10% addition to melee dps via mitigation debuff could ever compete with fury dps. A fury does 200dps more than a templar, so the group needs to do 2000dps of MELEE damage in order to justify a templar. Also this debuff helps in no way with soloing while furies retain their dps. Another issue you have totally ignored by "we are fine with groups".</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<P>At what point did I outright claim Templars do more DPS than a Fighter or Fury?  Even then, have I not brought up several ideas which address Templar DPS?  For example, I've suggested everything from a self only "holy aura" damage shield, a hammer style pet, a yaulp effect on our Mark line, and a weapon damage bonus added to Praetoreate.  I'm not sitting back in a corner rocking myself blinding chanting "Templar DPS is fine...Templar DPS is fine...Templar DPS is fine".</P> <P>Secondly, at what point did I claim that Templars only do 10% increase in damage through Reproach.  In groups I've been in, we've been able to increase DPS by 10-20%.  Specific examples I've cited included boosting a group with a fighter and 2 scouts from 1000-1200 consistent DPS to 1200-1400 consistent DPS.  </P> <DIV>This isn't about Kendricke vs. Templars here.  This isn't even Kendricke vs. Timaarit.  I'm just as passionate as others here about making the Templar a great class.  I just happen to disagree with others here about the best way to go about that, or even the best changes to make.  We all have different opinions on the subject.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's as if we're so caught up in the moment that we're blinding ourselves by hatred.  We're too quick to jump on the "<EM>haha, I sure showed him</EM>" or "<EM>haha, I burned her good</EM>" that we're not working together - something other classes have been able to do, and with good results.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Go on playing an adversarial role to me if you think it will help your cause.  It's worked so far, right?  Think about it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Skydude]

<DIV>Well I do think you bring a lot on yourself by negating anything someone suggests with a trumped parse. Although I have felt you try to do your best to bring Templars back in line with other classes, it has been skewed at times and I don't think any of us have the answers including the powers that be. They have created this travesty and although we did have one say, "They are looking into it", they have presented more updates with no more other dialogue presented to stay the community's hand and assure us something is being done.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think the biggest problem we all have is the silence. When they can post in Forum Games and not where there are real issues, it disheartens the community into feeling like we are being passed over. They may have a real solution, but we have yet to hear anything more than a message from a community relations person stating a month ago that its being looked at. Where are the DEVs saying, "Please everyone calm down we are trying our best to make this an enjoyable experience for all classes?" If they said that three months ago, well thats three months ago, new issues have come to light.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This will be an ongoing quagmire until a word of reinforcement or a solution is found and no parse or new idea will help this situation until they at least let someone know they are working on a solution.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I still say I rolled a Templar and that is what I got. 10-20% to DPS and fix our utility and I'll be happy. That doesn't save the fact that other classes are left behind a certain overpowered class (I won't say it to save them lost hair <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ), but with the low DPS excluding Utility, Templars, Inq, Wardens, and Mystics should be the best healers, not by a considerable amount, but they should have an edge. OK if that isn't the solution then give them a bone of some kind. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First and foremost, I believe spells that are broken across all classes need fixed. After thats done then introduce the new changes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now I'll just wait for this to be moved to the Glass House. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Timaarit]

At what point did I claim you have? You were quiet about it and only repeated one thing, that we should not solo but group. What you say you have suggested had been suggested long before you mentioned them. You were quiet about all those and said we were never meant to solo. At no point you have been working with the rest of the templar community, all you have been doing is driving your own interests. <div></div>

[BenEm]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>At what point did I outright claim Templars do more DPS than a Fighter or Fury?  Even then, have I not brought up several ideas which address Templar DPS?  For example, I've suggested everything from a self only "holy aura" damage shield, a hammer style pet, a yaulp effect on our Mark line, and a weapon damage bonus added to Praetoreate.  I'm not sitting back in a corner rocking myself blinding chanting "Templar DPS is fine...Templar DPS is fine...Templar DPS is fine".</P> <P>Secondly, at what point did I claim that Templars only do 10% increase in damage through Reproach.  In groups I've been in, we've been able to increase DPS by 10-20%.  Specific examples I've cited included boosting a group with a fighter and 2 scouts from 1000-1200 consistent DPS to 1200-1400 consistent DPS.  </P> <DIV>This isn't about Kendricke vs. Templars here.  This isn't even Kendricke vs. Timaarit.  I'm just as passionate as others here about making the Templar a great class.  I just happen to disagree with others here about the best way to go about that, or even the best changes to make.  We all have different opinions on the subject.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's as if we're so caught up in the moment that we're blinding ourselves by hatred.  We're too quick to jump on the "<EM>haha, I sure showed him</EM>" or "<EM>haha, I burned her good</EM>" that we're not working together - something other classes have been able to do, and with good results.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Go on playing an adversarial role to me if you think it will help your cause.  It's worked so far, right?  Think about it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Sorry Kendricke but the tone of your posts have always been Kendricke Vrs Templars if you dont want to project that impression you will have to reword your posts . None the less I will say this again ..................... We wont be getting help in the DPS department because we are too good already in PvP everybody seems to ignore the fact that the driving force behind the big combat update was PvP balance . They cant possibly give us more DPS I already cant be killed in PvP unless your 2 levs above me so getting more DPS on Temps would mean adjusting other classes to keep up on the PvP balance issue . Proof is in the pudding we havent been touched since LU 13 except for a couple of spell changes 2 or 3 of them while every patch note seems to tweek many classes they appearently think we are fine we arent even getting tweeks anymore . Bottom line we are deadly in PvP ...yep it takes 15 mins but Templars in PvP are tough customers ....to bad PvP is meaningless in this game its psuedo PvP you cant lose anything you dont want to ...kinda like PvP for wimps . No purpose to it what so ever yet it will keep our class from getting a lot of things we are asking for we have been had by PvP balance and that just plain blows !</DIV>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR>At what point did I claim you have? You were quiet about it and only repeated one thing, that we should not solo but group.<BR><BR>What you say you have suggested had been suggested long before you mentioned them. You were quiet about all those and said we were never meant to solo.<BR><BR>At no point you have been working with the rest of the templar community, all you have been doing is driving your own interests.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I've stated that Templars have never been a powerhouse soloing class.  Do you deny this is the case?  Was our ability to solo lowered by the update?  Were we ripping through encounters previous to the update faster than other classes?  I was not.  I solo better after the update, if you compare just the before and after.  However, we still solo worse than other classes - including Furies.  Add to this the fact that the developers have stated that not all classes are meant to solo as well as others and you have an even clearer picture why I would not believe that Templars are a "solo class".</P> <P>Can we solo?  Absolutely.  Can we solo as well as Furies?  Absolutely not.  We give up speed for security.  It's hard - very hard to kill me.  You've got to throw a lot at me and in a short amount of time.  The trade off is that I take a while longer than others to kill what I'm fighting.  </P> <P>As far as working "with the rest of the templar community", well...I don't believe you represent the rest of the templar community anymore than you believe I do.  I don't believe you're "working with" anyone that disagrees with your view of what a templar should be anymore than you believe I do.  Even so, I'll freely admit that I'm working toward my own best interests...and the interests of my guild.  Are you going to try to convince me that you're doing differently; that you're here fighting out of the kindness of your heart; that you're here to try to make my life as a templar easier for me and others like me without any regard for your own preferences?</P> <P>Stop making this about Kendricke vs. "the templar community".  It is not, nor has it ever been the issue.  Continuing to focus on me as some sort of enemy is not accurate; is not productive; will not effect postive change for templars; and only serves to distract from the real issues.</P> <P>I rarely bring you or others up in any real personal way.  Yet, in virtually every thread you've posted in, you've made derogatory references about myself, Radar-X, Supernova, or others you've dubbed the "we are fine brigade".  Why is that?  Why focus on the individuals?  What purpose does it serve?  What possible change are you hoping such attacks will bring about?  </P> <P> </P>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <p>I've stated that Templars have never been a powerhouse soloing class.  Do you deny this is the case? </p><hr></blockquote>Well you have stated that we should not be a soloing class. Period. And that has been your whole contribution to the conversation till you started to realize that nearly everyone else is against that idea. Or do you have any excuses why when you were told that we need more solo dps, you wrote "we work fine with groups"? And as for the scout idea you have, furies dont need 2 scouts to give group 200dps. They can do it themselves. And it is you who have made it Kendridge vs. templar community. You are the highest obstacle in making templars a viable class for groups and for soloing. And why focus on individuals? Because that is what you are, your opinion is far from temlpar community view. And you still think that you represent us. Here is the catch; you dont.</span><div></div>

[Sleet_Levanter]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>[context removed by Sleet; see original post]</BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'll admit that most players likely don't care about the numbers.  On that, we agree.  However, "most players" aren't the developers...and the developers <EM>do</EM> care about the numbers.  "Most players" can't change the game's code.  Developers can.  Given the choice between trying to convince other players of a thing or trying to convince the developers, I know where I'd prefer to put my focus. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I am curious to know what it would take for us to gather some sufficient and necessary data that can be honestly and meaningfully analyzed in order to present a firmly based, accurate, and well presented report on the current state of the Templar.  There are those of us who feel that parsing the data is highly important and those of us who feel that it cannot possibly capture the whole templar picture.  If we were to consciously focus on the only truly measurable aspect of the issue, what do we need to do to come up with something that most if not all of us can agree is a well founded numbers-based argument that clearly shows there are issues that need to be dealt with and where those issues can be demonstrated to exist.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am curious to know what the skeptics of parsing would require of a project like this.  If we were to momentarily allow the possibility that data gathered from a sufficiently large sample size under predefined conditions would offer us a relatively unbiased collection of parsed data, then perhaps we can approach the problems with the templar class from both the "feel" and perception of templars AND from an honest analysis of data that has been scientifically collected.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>From what I have seen, there are issues that the templar community is having that do not lend themselves well to parsing, so we would need to make the decision to exclude those particular issues, as well as make it clear in the conclusion of the report that those particular issues were intentionally not addressed.  For example, how would we go about measuring the realtive effectiveness of one class's utility spells against another's?  From the outset, we need to make it clear that the scope of the study is limited to measurable quantities.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Perhaps I should have started a new thread for this, but a discussion on the validity of parses seemed an appropriate place as any for this.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If we really want to get serious about this, I would want to know that we have both proponents of parsing as well as opponents of parsing willing to undertake this.  A study made by a group of only proponents or of only opponents would be meaningless and a waste of everyone's time.  In addition, I would like to find priests of other classes willing to participate in the study.  If we can not find other priests willing to take part inthe study then we would need to further limit the scope of the study, as we would have no measurable way to make meaningful comparisons to other classes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If we can get enough of the right people to commit to supporting such a study, we would then need to define the experimental procedures that we would need to follow in order to produce legitimate data.  Off the top of my head, I feel we would need to define several cases for soloing priests when up against mobs that are 1, 2, 3 or 4 levels lower or higher than the priest and mobs that are solo or in groups of 2, 3, or 4 and mobs that are 1, 2 or 3 up or down arrow mobs or average mobs.  This alone would make for a high number of combinations, so I think we would want to agree (without too much debate) on just a few combinations that would be representative of our actual game play.  Experiments would need to specify the level ranges of the priests at the time of the encounter.  To facilitate this, we may need to make a determination on whether or not a level 55 templar that is grouped with and mentoring a level 23 character can be considered to be a level 23 templar for the purposes of the experiment.  To add even more combinations we need to take into account the quality of the spells being used.  Ideally we would compare numbers based on characters who are using the same quality of spells; Adept I for instance.  All of that would be just for soloing, we would need similar experiments for grouping and raiding.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Once the required people are found to participate and the experimental conditions have been established, then we would need to commit to actually collecting the data.  How much data do we need?  How do ensure that data collection is done honestly?  Do we need representatives of the other interestes to witness the data collection?  How do we organize and submit the data?  How do we label submissions according to the experimental categories we are studyinig?  For example, a particular data packet submitted might be identified as a solo encounter against a group of 3 blue double-down arrow mobs.  These are just a few of the questions that would need to be answered in order to maintain the integrity of the results.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Once we have collected and submitted the data, who will perform an analysis of the data?  What data points do we want to focus on and what data is irrelevant?  We would probably want to know how long a fight lasted, what the average damage dealt over time was and what the average damage received over time was.  To my knowledge, the parsers have no way of determining how much power was used or how much remains at the end of a fight.  If we want to track those numbers we would need that information submitted along with the log or parse of the fight.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Once the data is analyzed it would need to be interpreted and written up into a report to be presented first to the templar community for review and comment.  The findings would then be combined with a separate section within the report to address the "feel" and perception issues of the class and after a final review and edit would be presented to SOE.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This would be a huge undertaking and something that will take a significant amount of time and cooperation.  Frankly I do not see this as being feasible due to the number of people needed and the level of commitment by some of those people.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Still... I am curious to know.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Perhaps we could agree on several much smaller studies with less stringent constraints.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>Well you have stated that we should not be a soloing class. Period.</SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Quote it.  Link it.  If you're going to say I said something, please back it up.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>And that has been your whole contribution to the conversation till you started to realize that nearly everyone else is against that idea. Or do you have any excuses why when you were told that we need more solo dps, you wrote "we work fine with groups"?</SPAN> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I'm just now figuring this out? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV> <P><EM>Remember, from a priest standpoint, you're on the defensive the entire fight.  You're not going to overwhelm him with damage.  You're going to have to wear him down...mostly with whatever melee you can muster...while you just keep yourself standing.  The goal is to come up with the most efficient manner of standing longer than him, which flies in the face of the traditional melee/scout/mage tactic of dropping the enemy before he hurts you too badly.  -<A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=8638&view=by_date_ascending&page=1" target=_blank>Kendricke, July 5th, 2005</A></EM></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>It's a good read there...back when the Templar community was one of the most rivalled of all the class forums.  We didn't attack each other then, or bash each other's heads in when someone posted facts or explanations that didn't fit with our own opinions.  We worked together and solved issues. <BR><BR><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>And why focus on individuals? Because that is what you are, your opinion is far from temlpar community view. And you still think that you represent us. Here is the catch; you dont.</SPAN> <HR> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM>As far as working "with the rest of the templar community", well...I don't believe you represent the rest of the templar community anymore than you believe I do.  I don't believe you're "working with" anyone that disagrees with your view of what a templar should be anymore than you believe I do.  Even so, I'll freely admit that I'm working toward my own best interests...and the interests of my guild.  Are you going to try to convince me that you're doing differently; that you're here fighting out of the kindness of your heart; that you're here to try to make my life as a templar easier for me and others like me without any regard for your own preferences?  -Kendricke, 11/15/05</EM></DIV> <DIV> <P><EM>I represented no one save myself at the Community Summit, nor did I attempt to represent anyone beyond myself.  I do not consider myself a Templar spokeperson, nor do I consider myself a "typical" Templar.  Then again, I don't consider many of the other Templars here to be representative of the "typical" Templar, either. - Kendricke, 11/08/05</EM></P> <P><EM>There are no Templar spokespersons or correspondants or representatives.  No special access.  No secret handshakes.  No grand conspiracy.  There are only players and developers.   -Kendricke, 11/15/05</EM></P> <P> </P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>11-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:09 AM</span>

[Suite]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zorbdan wrote:<BR> <P>You guys have just proven my point about parsing.</P> <DIV>''Parsing just doesn't tell the whole story, with all the variables that can occur in the game it is not an accurate way to demonstrate the value, functionality, purpose or effectivness of any given class.''</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One person shows a parse or log that demonstrates one thing, then someone else comes along with a parse or log that demonstrates something totally different because the variables have been changed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ff9999>Excellent ideas you're presenting in this thread, Zorbdan. I agree with you for the most part.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ff9999>There's a fun little book that statisticians love to hate, "How to Lie with Statistics." You can pretty much prove what you want to prove.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ff9999>I keep saying that SOE needs to give templars a survey, just a yes-no type of thing. Are you happier with your templar since LU13? If you had known when you made your templar what the class would become, would you have still made one? Etc.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ff9999>Suite (AKA Eliana, 54 templar)<BR></FONT></P>

[Suite]

<P>**REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:51 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

Sigh, Kend, you still dont get it. When people complain that other healers heal as well as we do and it takes us several times longer to solo anything than it does for them, dont try to convince us that we are good in groups. We know we are. But we also know that we are no better healers than any other priest class. So instead of trying to convince us that we are good in groups when the problem is in solo and in solo content added by SoE (your ultimate authority), focus on the problem, not to insignifigant factors which has nothing to do with the issue. I want to be able to solo the content added by SoE within similar timeframe as any other class. I have even suggested tripling our nukes in all perspectives. This would add no dps to us in long run but would enable us to kill most solo encounters a lot faster than we currently do. And you said nothing to it. Instead you went on with your "we are meant to group" agenda. We are priests. We are no more nor less defensive class than any other class, latest balancing in healing took care of that. Also the fact that SoE has meant that all priest will be able to heal group equally. But we are far from average dps of priests. And that is the problem. You are trying to fix it by convincing us that we are good in groups. That is not a fix because all other priests are good in groups too. <div></div>

[Kendricke]

<P>Compare us to Wardens then...or Mystics...or any class other than Furies.  The problems you're pointing out aren't with Templars and other priests, but rather Templars and Furies.</P> <P>We have comparable abilities and dps to any priest except Furies.  Yet, I almost never hear comparisons against any priest except Furies.  </P> <P> </P>

[BenEm]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>Compare us to Wardens then...or Mystics...or any class other than Furies.  The problems you're pointing out aren't with Templars and other priests, but rather Templars and Furies.</P> <P>We have comparable abilities and dps to any priest except Furies.  Yet, I almost never hear comparisons against any priest except Furies.  </P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>LOL yep and China is building up its military and have devised a laser that disrupts targeting systems ...who's system do you think it was designed to defeat ???   Funny how people strive to deny human nature aye ? Bwahahahaha!<BR>

[Kendricke]

<P>The point remains the same.  We're avoiding other priests which are already comparable to us.  We're shooting for the greener grass we see in the Fury class.</P> <P> </P>

[BenEm]

I cant disagree with that just wondered who you think or even expected this community to aim at ?

[bigmak20]

<div></div>So Kendricke... are you calling for a Fury nerf?  Or are you saying we should be brought up to Fury's level? <p>Message Edited by bigmak2010 on <span class=date_text>11-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:36 PM</span>

[Kendricke]

<DIV>Many of the arguments made on these forums are based around the idea that Templars are not balanced as a solo class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Consider that the game was built around group and guild play.  Note that this was stated over and over and over throughout the development cycle of the game.  Realize that the initial release of the game was geared heavily toward grouping play.  Only after release was some content added or altered to be more "solo and small group" friendly. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Consider that within the last month, developers have restated that as part of the intentional game design, not all classes will solo equally.  This is not a bug, but intended game design. </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>Many of those here seem to be assuming that all healers heal equally, or equally enough to where it doesn't matter in small group or soloing situations.  This is part of the problem, in my opinion.  We're building arguments on potentially erroneous assumptions - not facts. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Can we use more DPS?  Absolutely and I've tried to outline many different ways how that might be accomplished in various ways.  Then again, Wardens, Defilers, Mystics, and Inquisitors could also use more DPS.  So the question again becomes, why aren't we arguing to be more like Wardens?  or Defilers?  or Mystics?  Why are we only tending toward comparisons with Furies?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Compare us to Wardens then...or Mystics...or any class other than Furies.  The problems you're pointing out aren't with Templars and other priests, but rather Templars and Furies.</p> <>We have comparable abilities and dps to any priest except Furies.  Yet, I almost never hear comparisons against any priest except Furies. <> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Why should we compare ourselves to classes that propably want the same thing we do? Of course we compare ourselves to the best class, anything else is simply stupid. Furies are either overpowered or how all priests should work. I think the latter and thus want templars to be equal in all fields, not just in healing.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<P>**REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:49 AM</span>

[Skydude]

<DIV>Because his better half plays a Fury and he is defending her honor! He'd have to hide the posts he was actually truthful in. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[bigmak20]

<span>Responses in <font color="#ffff00">Yellow</font> <blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div> <div>Many of the arguments made on these forums are based around the idea that Templars are not balanced as a solo class.</div> <div> </div> <div>Consider that the game was built around group and guild play.  Note that this was stated over and over and over throughout the development cycle of the game.  Realize that the initial release of the game was geared heavily toward grouping play.  Only after release was some content added or altered to be more "solo and small group" friendly. </div> <div> </div> <div>Consider that within the last month, developers have restated that as part of the intentional game design, not all classes will solo equally.  This is not a bug, but intended game design. <font color="#ffff00"><u>Response</u>: So... why doesn't SOE come on here and tell us Templar' is 'working as intended'?</font> </div> <div><font size="+0"></font> </div> <div>Many of those here seem to be assuming that all healers heal equally, or equally enough to where it doesn't matter in small group or soloing situations.  This is part of the problem, in my opinion.  We're building arguments on potentially erroneous assumptions - not facts. <font color="#ffff00"><u>Response:</u> And what facts are you basing your assertion that we don't heal equally?  SOE has been very clear that it shouldn't and doesn't matter which healer you have in a small group.  What facts are you using to refute SOE's position?</font><font color="#ffff00"> </font></div> <div> </div> <div>Can we use more DPS?  Absolutely and I've tried to outline many different ways how that might be accomplished in various ways.  Then again, Wardens, Defilers, Mystics, and Inquisitors could also use more DPS.  So the question again becomes, why aren't we arguing to be more like Wardens?  or Defilers?  or Mystics?  Why are we only tending toward comparisons with Furies?</div> <div> </div> <div><font color="#ffff00"><u>Response:</u> Furies are simply the least broke.  They are priests.  They heal about the same as any of the rest of us priests.  All priests have less DPS then Furies -- a truism.  Which brings us back to the question I asked you... are you asking for Fury nerfs or asking for the rest of us to get dialed up to Fury level?</font> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Dalchar]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR><SPAN>Responses in <FONT color=#ffff00>Yellow</FONT><BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Can we use more DPS?  Absolutely and I've tried to outline many different ways how that might be accomplished in various ways.  Then again, Wardens, Defilers, Mystics, and Inquisitors could also use more DPS.  So the question again becomes, why aren't we arguing to be more like Wardens?  or Defilers?  or Mystics?  Why are we only tending toward comparisons with Furies?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00><U>Response:</U> Furies are simply the least broke.  They are priests.  They heal about the same as any of the rest of us priests.  All priests have less DPS then Furies -- a truism.  Which brings us back to the question I asked you... are you asking for Fury nerfs or asking for the rest of us to get dialed up to Fury level?</FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Now, toward the bottom of this thread: <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=11&message.id=4644" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=11&message.id=4644</A></P> <P>I added up all the numbers that were provided at the top, averaged them, and then calculated them as a percentage of templar dps.  The net result: Fury is about 24% more dps than Templars with the same INT on single target (numbers taken at 225 INT and at same level--225 INT is certainly attainable if templar switches in some cloth in some slots instead of plate and upgrades some to INT jewelry--net result they'd also avoid more and mitigate less--a lot like wearing leather I'm estimating actually... carrying around 2 sets of gear would be lame, but certainly doable) Surprisingly, Warden can do 30% more than templar on single target and more efficiently--and almost equal to fury on AOE excluding an ancient <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.  Even more surprising-- Templars aren't bottom of the bucket for dps, Inquis and Defiler are (from nuke/dot standpoint).  All of this omits ancient spells of course, as those gonna be hard to quantify and for that matter--you're a priest/fury/temp/whatever well before you get those... and I think all the nukes etc upgrade rather proportionally.<BR></P> <P>But there's another truism to all this-- Templars have the most utilities to provide additional healing and decrease incoming dps and some generally more effective buffs/debuffs for keeping the group alive (instead of making the enemy dead).  Really, the two classes are almost complete opposites when it comes to the entire dps arguement.  I'm not saying the templar spells are as they should be--but simply that they're there.</P> <P>To dps like a fury-- a templar would need to 1. ditch wis buffs for INT 2. give up higher effieicency smaller, faster nukes, 3. give up the ability to decrease mob dps. 4. give up 60% of their armor selection. 5. give up big heals (I can probably go back and find lots of threads about temps demanding the biggest baddest heals in game O_O).  Basically--take everything that makes you a defensive healer and take it offensive.</P> <P>But-- if you did all that to dps like a fury-- you'd be probably called a fury... not a templar.  And all of that for a 25% boost over your current nuke dps (on single target).</P> <P>I'm far from saying Templars have everything just snazzy as could be I fully support their spells being made as useful as they reasonably should be.  You can argue that a temp will never achieve the INT a fury can-- at the same time it's not easy for a fury to hit the 420 WIS cap either and while you have 420 WIS easy, you can pick up alternate gear to fill out other stats.  I may match your power by power buffs, but I'll never reach your HP capacity.</P> <P>Oh we could go on for hours...</P>

[Skydude]

<DIV>LOL by that link and your post your trying to intimate Wardens do more dps than a Fury? I bet there are quite a few Wardens that would probably differ on that outtake. Its another skewed parse on limited MOBs leaning to a predetermined result. Do each individual MOB in game with each class in normal armor for their classes and their own buffs average it all out and those numbers would change. What the results would be, I don't have the answer, but neither does that test.</DIV>

[Dalchar]

<DIV>Actually, it's not a parse, it's a simple mathematical calculation based on the constants:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>225 INT</DIV> <DIV>Same level</DIV> <DIV>Basically against an npc that has zero resists and infinite hp</DIV> <DIV>Assuming everyone could nuke indefinately</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What I did was take the average of all the nuke/dot values and add them up and divide everything by the templar's dps value to come up with a percentage of everyone above or below the templar.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gear and buffs would skew things--as those vary for everyone, at all times, in all points of the game.  But this is about the most comparible baseline you'll come up with.  225 INT for templars (as well as other classes) should be easily attainable if they decided to do so with the larger gear selection available and the shear amount of cloth gear out there with high INT values and clickies, etc... whether they chose to do so or not so they have something more suited for soloing with the game setup the way it currently is, is another matter.  Fury is the only class that can easily attain INT easily higher solo.</DIV> <DIV><BR>But anyway, it's a good outline of how things are set up, and everything will vary based on other outlying circumstances.  And of course, that's only based around nukes/DOTs-- which... are strictly based on: Damage done, INT value, Level, Total time to cast/recast, timeframe in which you're measuring.  If you eliminate the Level and INT variables into constants-- use average damage of the nuke... all you're really left with is... damage... done over a period of time... then you just line them all up and take a look.  This is the easy part to view and grasp and add up.  Parsing is where you get all the lies, skews, miscalculations, and misrepresentations.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And yes, by that show, it does show wardens at higher dps on a single target if they had equivalent INT.  You'll find a few current threads in fury/warden boards that they don't find this as much of a surprise to be as close to furies as they are on a baseline.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class=date_text>11-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:35 PM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:<div></div> <div>Actually, it's not a parse, it's a simple mathematical calculation based on the constants:</div> <div> </div> <div>225 INT</div> <div>Same level</div> <div>Basically against an npc that has zero resists and infinite hp</div> <div>Assuming everyone could nuke indefinately</div><hr></blockquote>The problem here is that it doesn't take account the fact that furies will kill solo opponent with one cast of each of those 3 spells while templar spams them for 3 to 4 times each. Thus fury soloing time equals the casting time. Templars soloing time is is the sum of each casting time x3 plus recast time on some spells.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>The problem here is that it doesn't take account the fact that furies will kill solo opponent with one cast of each of those 3 spells while templar spams them for 3 to 4 times each. Thus fury soloing time equals the casting time. Templars soloing time is is the sum of each casting time x3 plus recast time on some spells.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What are you fighting that only has ~2000 hit points?  </P> <P><BR> </P>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:<span>The problem here is that it doesn't take account the fact that furies will kill solo opponent with one cast of each of those 3 spells while templar spams them for 3 to 4 times each. Thus fury soloing time equals the casting time. Templars soloing time is is the sum of each casting time x3 plus recast time on some spells.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <>What are you fighting that only has ~2000 hit points? <> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Umm let me see, 3 x 3 x 400 = 3600 by my math, not 2000. Not my fault your templar has low int and a1 spells. Add 2 HO's and 10 autoattack hits aand you get a number over 4500. Try fixing your math and you might have hope yet. BTW, this combination gives me 150 dps while soloing. Now if my nukes were tripled, I could pull 500 dps while soloing a single target but still only 150 when fighting a long fight. Funny that you had no comment on that, are you planning to present that too as your own idea later?</span><div></div>

[quetzaqotl]

<P>I think kendricke was going of the dmg our nukes do which is less than 2k with an int lvl of 225 btw I parsed some fights last night taking average dps of fighting harpies and tears grifter quests with all my offensive buffing+gear+int (320 int) and I did around 200-250 dps solo fighting <FONT color=#0033ff>blue</FONT> mobs solo+group just an average (and not holding back after each fight I had like 50-60% mana left) when I  tested nude w/o my int buffs (w/o my int buffs i had 160 int) or offensive buffing (or proccing gear) I was hitting an average of 110-115-ish dps and I sometimes ran oop after fights (of course thats because I didnt have my mana pool buff up as that is linked with my int buff) but it was quite obvious how ineffecient our dmg spells are they drain quite a bit of mana.</P> <P>Please keep in mind I have to test it more as I m no pro at parsing and need more time to test it to the fullest but thats what I have for now ill post the rest on the fury boards when I get the most accurate numbers.</P> <DIV>(have been using eq companion for the parsin have to learn how to use it to the max used to use statalyzer but that project is unfortunately discontinued, I could only see my avg dps after like 30 mins of fighting heh)</DIV><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:34 AM</span>

[bigmak20]

<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote: <blockquote> <hr> bigmak2010 wrote:<span>Responses in <font color="#ffff00">Yellow</font> <blockquote> <div>Can we use more DPS?  Absolutely and I've tried to outline many different ways how that might be accomplished in various ways.  Then again, Wardens, Defilers, Mystics, and Inquisitors could also use more DPS.  So the question again becomes, why aren't we arguing to be more like Wardens?  or Defilers?  or Mystics?  Why are we only tending toward comparisons with Furies?</div> <div> </div> <div><font color="#ffff00"><u>Response:</u> Furies are simply the least broke.  They are priests.  They heal about the same as any of the rest of us priests.  All priests have less DPS then Furies -- a truism.  Which brings us back to the question I asked you... are you asking for Fury nerfs or asking for the rest of us to get dialed up to Fury level?</font></div> <div> </div> <div> <hr> </div></blockquote></span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Now, toward the bottom of this thread: <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=11&message.id=4644" target="_blank">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=11&message.id=4644</a></p> <p>I added up all the numbers that were provided at the top, averaged them, and then calculated them as a percentage of templar dps.  The net result: Fury is about 24% more dps than Templars with the same INT on single target (numbers taken at 225 INT and at same level--225 INT is certainly attainable if templar switches in some cloth in some slots instead of plate and upgrades some to INT jewelry--net result they'd also avoid more and mitigate less--a lot like wearing leather I'm estimating actually... carrying around 2 sets of gear would be lame, but certainly doable) Surprisingly, Warden can do 30% more than templar on single target and more efficiently--and almost equal to fury on AOE excluding an ancient <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.  Even more surprising-- Templars aren't bottom of the bucket for dps, Inquis and Defiler are (from nuke/dot standpoint).  All of this omits ancient spells of course, as those gonna be hard to quantify and for that matter--you're a priest/fury/temp/whatever well before you get those... and I think all the nukes etc upgrade rather proportionally.</p> <p>But there's another truism to all this-- Templars have the most utilities to provide additional healing and decrease incoming dps and some generally more effective buffs/debuffs for keeping the group alive (instead of making the enemy dead).  Really, the two classes are almost complete opposites when it comes to the entire dps arguement.  I'm not saying the templar spells are as they should be--but simply that they're there.</p> <p>To dps like a fury-- a templar would need to 1. ditch wis buffs for INT 2. give up higher effieicency smaller, faster nukes, 3. give up the ability to decrease mob dps. 4. give up 60% of their armor selection. 5. give up big heals (I can probably go back and find lots of threads about temps demanding the biggest baddest heals in game O_O).  Basically--take everything that makes you a defensive healer and take it offensive.</p> <p>But-- if you did all that to dps like a fury-- you'd be probably called a fury... not a templar.  And all of that for a 25% boost over your current nuke dps (on single target).</p> <p>I'm far from saying Templars have everything just snazzy as could be I fully support their spells being made as useful as they reasonably should be.  You can argue that a temp will never achieve the INT a fury can-- at the same time it's not easy for a fury to hit the 420 WIS cap either and while you have 420 WIS easy, you can pick up alternate gear to fill out other stats.  I may match your power by power buffs, but I'll never reach your HP capacity.</p> <p>Oh we could go on for hours...</p><hr></blockquote>I think you're right. Now... please for the love of god pay attention everyone I've said this so many times... MEASURE DPS IN 25 to 30 SECONDS. Because that's how long (or less) it takes most classes to kill that MoB.  It is not comparable; at all; no matter the Int level.  Int will help but we'll still be way way way under the Furies DPS in a normal fight. Also; since the fights that give us the most grief are low level group MoBs that PREVENT US FROM CASTING focusing only on single targets is a shameless distortion of facts. There's posts all over -- even solo healing a group posts.  Average DPS for the Templar 50, average DPS for the Fury 200.  WHILE KEEPING THE GROUP ALIVE.  Which do you want in your grind group? </span>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>The problem here is that it doesn't take account the fact that furies will kill solo opponent with one cast of each of those 3 spells while templar spams them for 3 to 4 times each. Thus fury soloing time equals the casting time. Templars soloing time is is the sum of each casting time x3 plus recast time on some spells.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><>What are you fighting that only has ~2000 hit points? <><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Umm let me see, 3 x 3 x 400 = 3600 by my math, not 2000. Not my fault your templar has low int and a1 spells. Add 2 HO's and 10 autoattack hits aand you get a number over 4500. Try fixing your math and you might have hope yet. BTW, this combination gives me 150 dps while soloing. Now if my nukes were tripled, I could pull 500 dps while soloing a single target but still only 150 when fighting a long fight. Funny that you had no comment on that, are you planning to present that too as your own idea later?<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>So you're saying that Furies can kill targets with 3600-4500 health in three spell castings ("one cast each of those 3 spells")?  </P> <P> </P>

[KingOfF00LS]

Ok, so somebody told me to go to EQ2 Summoners (or whatever the name of the site is, can't remember right now since I'm at work) and download something called "Combat Stats" to track my wife's dps (ranger) with different weapons.  The problem is I can't find a link for it on the site anywhere and the forum search was of no help either.  Anyone heard of this program or did he give me the wrong name or what?  Or is there something better? <div></div>

[quetzaqotl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KingOfF00LS wrote:<BR>Ok, so somebody told me to go to EQ2 Summoners (or whatever the name of the site is, can't remember right now since I'm at work) and download something called "Combat Stats" to track my wife's dps (ranger) with different weapons.  The problem is I can't find a link for it on the site anywhere and the forum search was of no help either.  Anyone heard of this program or did he give me the wrong name or what?  Or is there something better?<BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>(oh thats something Id like to know too d/l combat stats but didint have the executable, not topic related much but just wanted to say: me too! me too! hehe)

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote>Kendricke wrote:<p>So you're saying that Furies can kill targets with 3600-4500 health in three spell castings ("one cast each of those 3 spells")?  </p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Approximately yes. My count could be a little high since I dont remember all the values for my 'nukes'.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE>Kendricke wrote: <P><BR>So you're saying that Furies can kill targets with 3600-4500 health in three spell castings ("one cast each of those 3 spells")? </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Approximately yes. My count could be a little high since I dont remember all the values for my 'nukes'.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>You told me that my math was off and attacked me for it.  All I want to confirm is that you did so with cause.  If you're going to state "facts", please be prepared to back them up. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How much damage do you feel an average (oh let's say level 55) Fury can potentiall put forth within 30 seconds?  Is it 4500?  Is it 3600?  Is it ~2000?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[nullcodehe]

<DIV>Fact 102:</DIV> <DIV>Kendrike got his numbers wrong</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fact 101:</DIV> <DIV>Please dont insult his gentle mantle</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fact thirty two:</DIV> <DIV>Dont respond to his drama</DIV><p>Message Edited by nullcodehere on <span class=date_text>11-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:23 AM</span>

[KingOfF00LS]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:<span>Well you have stated that we should not be a soloing class. Period.</span> <hr> </blockquote> <div>Quote it.  Link it.  If you're going to say I said something, please back it up. </div> <hr></blockquote> http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=14169&query.id=0#M14169 Kendricke said: "</span>Not all classes solo as well as others, just as some classes are more necessary for groups to properly function than others.  <b>Do NOT play a Templar expecting to solo as well as other classes.  <i>This has NEVER been a soloing class.</i></b>" [bold, italics mine] Looks to me like you said just what he claimed you said. The gist of "This has NEVER been a soloing class" sounds a lot like "<span><span>we should not be a soloing class" to me. </span></span><div></div>

[Bjerde]

<div></div><p><span></span></p><img src="../../i/p.gif" alt="" border="0" height="1" width="1">The parser is found at http://www.combatstats.com<blockquote><hr></blockquote><p>Even more surprising-- Templars aren't bottom of the bucket for dps, Inquis and Defiler are (from nuke/dot standpoint). </p><p><font color="#6666ff">Having never played an Inquis, I cannot comment on that class, but Defilers do not have a lot of DPS...as I have played that class a lot. They are probably a little better than a Templar although can't solo as good post-DoF as they could b4. The trade-off there is they get slows and lots of debuffs...for poison/disease (to help them) and they debuff ALL stats very nicely of the mob + decrease DPS of the mob by percentage.</font></p><p>But there's another truism to all this-- Templars have the most utilities to provide additional healing and decrease incoming dps and some generally more effective buffs/debuffs for keeping the group alive (instead of making the enemy dead).</p><p><font color="#6666ff">This is certainly not true. We do not buff the best. We buff HP nicely....that is it. Defiler buffs HP/Power pool...pretty equal I'd say. ALL priests buff mitigation the same now. Inquis buff exactly the same as Temps now (I asked guildy)</font></p><p>To dps like a fury-- a templar would need to1. ditch wis buffs for INT<font color="#6666ff">By design the Fury is an offensive priest, and an Int buff proves it. Why does he have to heal like his brother the Warden?</font> 2. give up higher effieicency smaller, faster nukes,<font color="#6666ff">Gladly, they really do suck.</font></p><p>3. give up the ability to decrease mob dps.<font color="#6666ff">Sorry bud, we lost that a long time ago (our str debuff)</font></p><p>4. give up 60% of their armor selection.<font color="#6666ff">and you can give up animal form</font></p><p> 5. give up big heals (I can probably go back and find lots of threads about temps demanding the biggest baddest heals in game O_O). <font color="#6666ff">Which...we did not get. Defilers heals are for the exact amount as Templar</font></p><p>Basically--take everything that makes you a defensive healer and take it offensive.<font color="#6666ff">Well....hmmm....the Fury doesn't give up anything it has to make it an offensive priest. A Fury has big heals, fast casts, more heals than anyone...sounds JUST like a Defensive priest to me!</font></p><p>But-- if you did all that to dps like a fury-- you'd be probably called a fury... not a templar.  And all of that for a 25% boost over your current nuke dps (on single target).<font color="#6666ff">Right, now isn't that the irony. Eveyone wants it all. </font></p><p>I may match your power by power buffs, but I'll never reach your HP capacity.</p><p><font color="#6666ff">This is completely false. People almost always forget that Templars have the lowest power pool. That is another thing against us. We also have the lowest hit points....but, lucky us....we wear plate, so that means we can take 3 hits instead of 2.</font></p><p><font color="#6666ff">My main is a 60 Templar, my alt is a 38 Fury, I play my brothers 51 Defiler often. That is three priest archetypes. Overall they are not that un-balanced.  The Fury is in the spotlight because they got some very nice boosts post DoF. Take the Templar/Fury debate out of the picture and the priests are not all that bad.</font></p><p><font color="#6666ff"><font color="#9966ff">Wards are finally fixed. Regens got a good boost. Reactives got nerfed. </font></font><font color="#6666ff"><font color="#9966ff">Healing is in a decent state. (fairly equal) </font></font><font color="#6666ff"><font color="#9966ff">Why aren't we all happy : )  It is the DPS and Utility that is unbalanced now.</font><font color="#9966ff">I was excited about the AE reducer....but it doesn't work on raid mobs. Who else AE's, LOL.</font></font></p><p><font color="#6666ff"></font></p><p></p><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<P>I appreciate the effort, but I feel it's incorrect.  In response to Timaarit in the first place, I admitted:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><EM>"I've stated that Templars have never been a powerhouse soloing class.  Do you deny this is the case?" - Kendricke</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><EM>His reponse was direct:</EM></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><EM>"Well you have stated that we should not be a soloing class. Period." - Timaarit</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>There is no "period" to this.  I've never stated that "<EM>Templars <STRONG>should not</STRONG> be a soloing class</EM>".  <P>I never said we "<EM>should not</EM>" be a soloing class.  I've said that we currently are not nor have we ever been.  I've stated that developers have stated that all classes do not solo equally.  It's a subtle, yet all important difference.</P> <P>I admit we are not a primary soloing class, on par with conjurors, furies, monks, swashbucklers, necromancers, and so forth.  We're primarily a grouping support class and always have been.  We can solo...just not nearly as well as other clases.  Are you somehow denying this, KingOfF00ls? </P> <P> </P> <P> </P></DIV>

[zorbdan]

In EQ1 I soloed alot with my cleric, I had a friend who played a paladin and he used to always complain to me about not being able to solo. Eventually they improved melee dps and he was able to finally solo. I guess we should be happy that we can solo at all?

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zorbdan wrote:<BR>In EQ1 I soloed alot with my cleric, I had a friend who played a paladin and he used to always complain to me about not being able to solo. Eventually they improved melee dps and he was able to finally solo. I guess we should be happy that we can solo at all? <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>That's actually part of the point.  At level 65(60AA), I could not <EM>find</EM> a spot to effectively solo.</P> <P>I may solo slower than other classes here, but the fact that I can solo at all is a godsend for this cleric.</P> <P> </P>

[KingOfF00LS]

<span><blockquote><hr>Bjerde wrote:<div></div><p><span></span></p><img src="../../i/p.gif" alt="" border="0" height="1" width="1">The parser is found at http://www.combatstats.com<hr></blockquote> That url goes nowhere.  Do you know of another site that may have the download mirrored? </span><div></div>

[KingOfF00LS]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><div><p>Are you somehow denying this, KingOfF00ls? </p> </div><hr></blockquote> I'm denying that this attempt at spin is in any way convincing.  But I got exactly what I expected (and I imagine what the majority of other viewers expected as well). This is why I normally don't even read posts written by certain people.... </span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

I think the site's been down for about 2 weeks now (which doesn't bode well).  Every time I use the program I get a window telling me an update's available and then it hangs when I try to download it. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>EDIT:  An alternative used by some of the other officers in my guild is EQ Companion (<A href="http://home.inreach.com/kai/EQCompanion/" target=_blank>http://home.inreach.com/kai/EQCompanion/</A>).  Make sure to switch it to EQ2 mode after installing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(P.S. - Call it spin if you want.  I never said that we should not be a soloing class, only that we're not.  I've stated that we can solo, but we are not primarily a soloing class.  If you're looking for a conspiracy you'll likely find one every time.  If you're looking for facts, you still have not found a post where I've stated we "<EM>should not be</EM>" a soloing class.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>11-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:07 AM</span>

[Bjerde]

But we aren't uber healers like eq1. Any class can solo in EQ2, that is a good thing. We are just one of the worst classes to solo with....us and assassins. Honestly, it really sucks doing quests, harvesting or anything solo at level 60. Green mobs take to long to fight, I would rather train them. It is much faster. I got killed by two green single down arrows in LT, one was a healer and I couldn't kill him fast enough before I ran out of mana. I can usually kill greens and solo blues, but the healer just was too much, even with stuns and mezzing. <div></div>

[KingOfF00LS]

Oh look, more spin....just what we needed more of. <div></div>

[KingOfF00LS]

<span><blockquote><hr>Bjerde wrote: I can usually kill greens and solo blues, but the healer just was too much, even with stuns and mezzing. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Out of curiosity, did you notice any difference at all in Prostrate after upgrading it?  It might've been my imagination (and I didn't write down the numbers to verify), but I could've sworn that that stun duration and recast were exactly the same at Adept I as they are at Apprentice I. </span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <div>You told me that my math was off and attacked me for it.  All I want to confirm is that you did so with cause.  If you're going to state "facts", please be prepared to back them up. </div> <div> </div> <div>How much damage do you feel an average (oh let's say level 55) Fury can potentiall put forth within 30 seconds?  Is it 4500?  Is it 3600?  Is it ~2000?</div> <hr></blockquote>Over twice what an average cleric can. Besides, the time is not 30 seconds as full legendary/a3 templar can kill singe solo encounter in that time. A fury with similar gear can do it in 10s. Still the answer to your question is that a fury heals as well as a templar (yeah yeah, we have some lotto utility which is in fact totally useless in healing while you are soloing) while retaining 3 to 4x the burst DPS and over twice the long term DPS. So when are you going to answer the question someone made? Are you calling for a fury nerf or templar upgrade? Neither? BS.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div> <p>I appreciate the effort, but I feel it's incorrect.  In response to Timaarit in the first place, I admitted:</p> <blockquote dir="ltr"> <p><em>"I've stated that Templars have never been a powerhouse soloing class.  Do you deny this is the case?" - Kendricke</em></p></blockquote> <p><em>His reponse was direct:</em></p> <blockquote dir="ltr"> <p><em>"Well you have stated that we should not be a soloing class. Period." - Timaarit</em></p></blockquote> <div>There is no "period" to this.  I've never stated that "<em>Templars <strong>should not</strong> be a soloing class</em>".  <p>I never said we "<em>should not</em>" be a soloing class.  I've said that we currently are not nor have we ever been.  I've stated that developers have stated that all classes do not solo equally.  It's a subtle, yet all important difference.</p> <p>I admit we are not a primary soloing class, on par with conjurors, furies, monks, swashbucklers, necromancers, and so forth.  We're primarily a grouping support class and always have been.  We can solo...just not nearly as well as other clases.  Are you somehow denying this, KingOfF00ls? </p></div><hr></blockquote>Ah, but here comes the rest of you posts in question. You have done your absolute best to deny templars any kind of soloability. In every request/demant for more DPS, you write 'we are fine with groups'. Thus you are in fact saying that we should not be a soloing class. Fine, but then we do need TONS of more healing and utility for grouping. In that case we should be able to solo heal raid x2 at minimun. But I'll settle for soloability.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<P>**REMOVED FLAME BAIT**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:49 AM</span>

[Zabumt]

<DIV>The thing is, Templars are the BEST healers in the game.  The problem is, xp groups don't take advantage of our healing power.  In a grind group killing solo yellow triples... bleh... any priest can do it.  In a group acting a little crazy, that's where the fun really begins.  Refer to my Templar Workout post.  In certain groups taking on certain areas, I don't think any other priest could keep up with our healing potential.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I've never said we weren't the best healers in the game.  But, it's difficult to find groups willing to take the risk to exercise our full healing potential.  So, you end up with a situation where most of the time you're bored in an XP group because it only takes 2 or three spells to keep a tank alive or you're stuck soloing while LFG.  Killing encounters at a fraction of the rate of other, more soloable, classes.  This is one of those gameplay things where I think they need to make heroic encounters more challenging (group damage-wise) because we seem to REALLY excel at healing an entire group and not just a tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Some people have figured this out and luckily I got a glimpse of it recently in a mostly insane xp group to see that it really is true.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Zabumtik wrote:<div>The thing is, Templars are the BEST healers in the game.  </div> <hr></blockquote>This statement is no longer true. There are times when other healers are better. Thus the right statement is that templars are best healers in certain situations. Most of the time we are equally good as anyone else and then there are times when others are better. The thing is as you said, average groups have no use for templars since we only heal. And situations when templars would make a difference are not even a weekly event for majority of players. Thus they pick those who can get them xp faster.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>I doubt you even play a templar, I think you are just trolling the forum.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR><A href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=105807101" target=_blank>Kendricke of the Legion of the White Rose</A></P> <P>Which Templar is yours?  Come to think of it, you've never mentioned so much as a level so far as I can remember.  Have a link to your own Templar?</P>

[Timaarit]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:<span>I doubt you even play a templar, I think you are just trolling the forum.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p> <a href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=105807101" target="_blank">Kendricke of the Legion of the White Rose</a></p> <p>Which Templar is yours?  Come to think of it, you've never mentioned so much as a level so far as I can remember.  Have a link to your own Templar?</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Nope, because I hate to be harassed in game. Edit: And of course I could link just about any templar here. It actually proves nothing unless people send tells in game to verify.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class=date_text>11-17-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:53 PM</span>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR> <SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>I doubt you even play a templar, I think you are just trolling the forum.<BR></SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR><A href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=105807101" target=_blank>Kendricke of the Legion of the White Rose</A></P> <P>Which Templar is yours?  Come to think of it, you've never mentioned so much as a level so far as I can remember.  Have a link to your own Templar?</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, because I hate to be harassed in game.<BR><BR>Edit: And of course I could link just about any templar here. It actually proves nothing unless people send tells in game to verify.</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I can assure you that <EM>that</EM> particular Kendricke of <EM>that</EM> particular Legion of the White Rose is indeed me.  My point in asking for you to verify your own Templar is because you questioned whether or not I'm a Templar.  </P> <P><BR> </P>

[Timaarit]

<P>**REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:48 AM</span>

[Kendricke]

<P>I'm not going to be drawn into a personal argument here.  </P> <P>If you don't wish to believe that I'm a Templar, that's your belief to hold.  If you don't wish to reveal whether or not you even play a Templar, then that's your right.  However, if you wish to personally impune me with accusations of trolling and class imcompetence, I'd kindly ask that you take that to another forum as it's against the posted rules we all agreed to here.</P> <P>  </P> <P> </P>

[zorbdan]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zorbdan wrote:<BR>In EQ1 I soloed alot with my cleric, I had a friend who played a paladin and he used to always complain to me about not being able to solo. Eventually they improved melee dps and he was able to finally solo. I guess we should be happy that we can solo at all? <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>That's actually part of the point.  At level 65(60AA), I could not <EM>find</EM> a spot to effectively solo.</P> <P>I may solo slower than other classes here, but the fact that I can solo at all is a godsend for this cleric.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Sigh. I wonder whos one argument about templar healing vs. other priests is that THIS IS NOT EQ1 and that we are not EQ1 clerics...<BR><BR>Well this comment your yours really made your 'opinions' clear. I doubt you even play a templar, I think you are just trolling the forum.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The point I was trying to make was Paladins in EQ1 suffered from the same thing we do in this game - Lack of offensive power- damage per second. They changed it so they had more dps, maybe there is hope for us maybe not but we should be happy that we can solo at all. Things could be worse.

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:<span>I doubt you even play a templar, I think you are just trolling the forum.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p> <a href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=105807101" target="_blank">Kendricke of the Legion of the White Rose</a></p> <p>Which Templar is yours?  Come to think of it, you've never mentioned so much as a level so far as I can remember.  Have a link to your own Templar?</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Nope, because I hate to be harassed in game. Edit: And of course I could link just about any templar here. It actually proves nothing unless people send tells in game to verify.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class="date_text">11-17-2005</span> <span class="time_text">03:53 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Why would you, an upstanding citizen of the Templar community, be harassed? When I, a notorious troll who knows nothing about healers, never get harassed despite having my characters on open display? Wait, nm, I DO get harassed, by people who know I give good jewellery service <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  But it's a nice form of harassment, I think.</span><div></div>