Best Healer

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:SoE called this balanced.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Hehe I think it's the resounding silence as to what the balancing and counterbalancing things are that has people on edge.  Dropping a note and saying how a spell functions or was a display issue doesn't really tell you much about what they're actually thinking and general intents.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I agree.  I'd like to know what they have in mind for their priest balancing efforts.  I for one prefer a defensive v. offense healer approach.  Many think, however, that SOE has abandoned that tack because it is too hard to tune, and that they have decided to make all healers defensively equal to each other.  BitF lends serious credence to that theory, at least on the outside of furydom looking in.  I would like to hear an official comment on what developers think should be the advantage of playing a templar--or a warden for that matter--over a fury.  In my mind, the jury is still out.  They could quell a lot of anxiety with a simple comment or two, at least in my case.</P> <P>Alephin</P>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Takeo101 wrote:<BR> <P>I am gonna hazard a guess....they dont know?</P> <P> </P> <P>Lates.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Even if they did, they could never prove it empirically.</P> <P>Alephin</P>

[Dalchar]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR>to Furygod,<BR>i didnt say Primal Fury is a group buff, if u take some care when reading, i say a 500 dps rogue can push to 800 while proc..thats for a 300 dps up. for 1 fury buff.<BR>then i add up the fae flame, due to it's fixed dmg. the dmg is fixed. dps from 240 - 120 dps.<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I think the dps/haste portions of that spell only affect auto-attack damage.  So if I'm right, the actual boost isn't likely to be an order of 300 dps.  And it's I think 10% chance to proc for 10s duration... you know... hmm... I don't see it go off often on myself, I do wonder how often it goes off on a scout... I'd assume more often wonder if it's on about 30% of fights, or 50%... something to look into.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fae Flames number of people meleeing in the 20s of it's duration (20s recast) w/ 125 each hit x3 hits: </DIV> <DIV>1 - 18.75dps</DIV> <DIV>2 - 37.5dps</DIV> <DIV>3 - 56.25dps</DIV> <DIV>4 - 75dps</DIV> <DIV>5 - 93.75dps</DIV> <DIV>6 - 112.5dps</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Assuming that you have adept 3 Nuke on the fury and it hits for 1300 (I think the range at 60 is about 1100 -1500 I'm at work so estimating) = 72.2dps.  The power cost on Fae if I remember right was about the same as the nuke.  So to generally break even you need 4 people meleeing for it to make par.  Which is about right for what I remember when I looked at them in game.   Course, it does land on pets (not dumbfire pets), but anyway the point being that generally Fae doesn't do much as it's power intensive and not worth the cost if you only have 3 or less people smacking things.  I typically find myself with 2 mages in a group (guild has lots of casters...) and I'm usually in mage groups in raids, so this spell sees little real action.  It's kinda like your lotto heals, while you can cast them, and they may go off or not, the power is generally spent better elsewhere unless the circumstance warrents otherwise.</DIV>

[kenji]

<P>if a small grp (2-4), fury self dps is way higher than templar.</P> <P>if a big grp of melee (6, 5 tanks, 1 healer), fae flame and admonishment is about the same useful.<BR>if a big grp of melee (6, 5 dps class (such as zerker tank), 1 healer)with uber dps (currently soe up`d the proc rate of DW, and the *bug* of ranger proc rate still here), primal fury , fae flame will just pwn admonishment.<BR><BR>i just want to point templar can never close to 50% of a fury do on dps session...(either dps / debuff usefulness)<BR>but a fury can do 90% of a templar on heal session...</P> <DIV>btw...And it's I think 10% chance to proc for 10s duration... you know... hmm... I don't see it go off often on myself, u know, GoC is 5%, and Kend still think it proc more than enough to keep a group alive w/o healing (in some situations, mutiple buffs), so i think 10% is doubled rate.</DIV>

[Dalchar]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Alephin wrote:<BR> <P>I agree.  I'd like to know what they have in mind for their priest balancing efforts.  I for one prefer a defensive v. offense healer approach.  Many think, however, that SOE has abandoned that tack because it is too hard to tune, and that they have decided to make all healers defensively equal to each other.  BitF lends serious credence to that theory, at least on the outside of furydom looking in.  I would like to hear an official comment on what developers think should be the advantage of playing a templar--or a warden for that matter--over a fury.  In my mind, the jury is still out.  They could quell a lot of anxiety with a simple comment or two, at least in my case.</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Well, here's a good question for all priests: Do we consider healing defense?  When I personally think defense, I think preventing damage from occurring, or immediate nullification.  While reactives heal, they heal immediately, I think of that less as healing than I think of it as defense.  I think wards (dear god we could all only hope to have a specialty so fabulous... I <3 my little shaman!!) are preventative.  Slows are preventative.  The Lotto blocker temps have, is preventative.  Stifles/stuns are preventative.  I think of healing as something broke through defenses and needs replenished.  You're working your way back up and recovering.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, for our christmas wishlists... in every general class forum (mage, priest, fighter, scout) a post from a developer on the states of classes and what their general intent and ideas are about the subclasses, and quelling some of the biggest questions some of the classes have.  For example... why different recast timers for priest heals?  How is the dps balance for priests and fighters generally scaled?  Why does assassin dmg still generally stink as a Tier 1 dps class?  What on all of Norrath are you thinking about doing for enchanters?  Why do guardians get to make their heart explode?  Did I hit upon the big ones? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[kenji]

<P>/ooc, as long as no SoE feedback we are broken, every class is "fine", everything is "balanced". even we dont agree ourselves.</P> <P> </P>

[Gcha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR>Exactly.  The general M.O. of game devs is to deny everything until the day it's done ......... unless and *until* it's something they want to make a big marketing campaign on. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>As for the mechanics of PvP, I will again make clear that there are no duels, guild wars, or PvP servers currently being planned for EverQuest II. Our focus will continue to be on the PvE experience.</DIV> <DIV>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>11-09-2004 <BR><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=1775#M1775" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=1775#M1775</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR>It's simply a feature we decided not to include in EverQuest II. As you point out, there are a lot of options for PvP fans in other SOE games.</DIV> <DIV>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II <BR>11-16-2004<BR><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=20506#M20506" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=20506#M20506</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There are no duels, guild wars, or PvP servers currently planned for EQII. Our focus will continue to be on enhancing the PvE experience. </DIV> <DIV><BR>Ryan "Blackguard" Shwayder <BR>12-17-2004 <BR><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=72084#M72084" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=72084#M72084</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR>That is either a false copy or a misinformed GM -- we currently have no plans to implement PvP in EverQuest II (that includes duels, guild wars, PvP servers, etc). </DIV> <DIV>Ryan "Blackguard" Shwayder <BR>12-18-2004 <BR><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=72893#M72893" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=72893#M72893</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR>While this thread isn't out of hand yet, I am closing it down before it does. As others have pointed out, this is a "dead horse" topic. We do not currently have any plans to implement PvP in EverQuest II. That includes dueling, guild wars, PvP servers, etc. If that ever changes, we will let you know. </DIV> <DIV><BR>Ryan "Blackguard" Shwayder <BR>12-23-2004 <BR><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=15322#M15322" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=15322#M15322</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And then ................<BR>Also, we're taking the first step towards introducing PvP competition with the introduction of a new type of combat!</DIV> <DIV>John Smedley <BR>April 7th, 2005 </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Like I said, deny it until you're ready for the marketing campaign :smileyvery-happy:</DIV>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR> <BR> <DIV>Well, here's a good question for all priests: Do we consider healing defense?  When I personally think defense, I think preventing damage from occurring, or immediate nullification.  While reactives heal, they heal immediately, I think of that less as healing than I think of it as defense.  I think wards (dear god we could all only hope to have a specialty so fabulous... I <3 my little shaman!!) are preventative.  Slows are preventative.  The Lotto blocker temps have, is preventative.  Stifles/stuns are preventative.  I think of healing as something broke through defenses and needs replenished.  You're working your way back up and recovering.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, for our christmas wishlists... in every general class forum (mage, priest, fighter, scout) a post from a developer on the states of classes and what their general intent and ideas are about the subclasses, and quelling some of the biggest questions some of the classes have.  For example... why different recast timers for priest heals?  How is the dps balance for priests and fighters generally scaled?  Why does assassin dmg still generally stink as a Tier 1 dps class?  What on all of Norrath are you thinking about doing for enchanters?  Why do guardians get to make their heart explode?  Did I hit upon the big ones? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I definitely consider heals defensive in nature.  The way I would define it if I were balancing classes would be to say that offense is any way of controlling outgoing damage, and defense is any way of controlling incoming damage.  Healing would qualify as defense, because it is removing damage that has come in.  Offensive abilities are damage proc buffs, mitigation debuffs (physical or spell types), nukes, dots, hastes, skill buffs, strength and int buffs, etc.  Defensive abilities, include all heals, wards, stuns, mezzes, stifles, slows, armor class buffs, and avoidance buffs.  Might as well throw hit point buffs in there as well, since having hit points is only important if one is taking damage.  This is not a total list.  In my mind, all combat spells (including resurrections) fall into either the offensive or defensive category.  Some, such as the templar smite, actually have components from both, as useless as a 1 second pacify might be.</P> <P>Utility such as sow and oddysey must be balanced completely separately, in my opinion, because it will almost always take a back seat to combat effectiveness except in very special circumstances.</P> <P>Alephin<BR></P>

[Kendricke]

<P>Now, not to seem picky once again, but this is all irrelevant to what I specifically argued.  I was specifically arguing the statement <EM>"</EM><SPAN><EM>Remember when they mentioned that they are not going to bring PvP to EQ2?"  </EM>All I can say is that had you been paying attention in late 2003 and again throughout pre-release 2004, you'd know that they stated clearly that PVP was not to be included at launch, nor would it be included till sometime "down the road".  However, it was stated even then that PVP would eventually be looked at...but that primarily, the developers would be concentrating on PVE at launch.</SPAN></P> <P>Besides which, there's a whole lot of "currently" in there.  Moorgard's made it clear on many occasions that what he posts is accurate at the time he posts it.  Then again, considering all of the posts you quoted come from November and December of 2004, that's consistent with pre-release announcements that Moorgard made on EQLounge (now Ogaming) and EQII.com regarding their plans to not include PVP at launch, but at some point "down the road".   In any regard, they did state clearly that should the situation change, they'd inform us.  In April, it would seem that they did. </P> <P>However, if you're dead set on locking them down, that's up to you.  I realize that how much you hate it when you seem to perceive me "nit picking", so I'd hate to think that you're spending too much time trying to find that one elusive quote that will "PROVE" I'm wrong.  Tell you what, I'll just admit I'm wrong now and give you the satisfaction of winning the argument.  </P> <P>You're absolutely correct that SOE stated that there'd be no PVP.  Obviously I've spent too much time reading what was actually said and not reading into what was said, so I apparantly overlooked all the posts where SOE representatives mislead us and hoodwinked us just to get us to believe that there'd never be any PVP.  All the posts I read on the subject regarding PVP eventually coming out was aparantly a smokescreen - a clever diversion to make us believe that there'd eventually be PVP when in fact they never intended there to be any PVP at all...</P> <P>(Oh wait!  ...but there is PVP coming.  ...and they did originally state that PVP would be included down the road.  Oh well, I must have read it all wrong.  ...right?  :smileywink<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Well, thanks for showing me how incorrect I was anyway.  I'm sure you're right and they're wrong somehow and I'm just not smart enough to figure it out.  </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P><SPAN class=postbody> </P></SPAN>

[Gcha]

Room service, could you please send up a Venusian interpreter?

[Timaarit]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>If you want me to "remember" when they mentioned they were not going to bring PVP to EQ2, then I'm going to ask you to find the quote that says such a thing.  Without such a supporting statement, you're asking that we take you at your word only.  So far, I'm not inclined to do such a thing, particularly with the statements I'm able to verify that directly contradict your personal recollections.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>I guess you got your quotes. Remeber now? Did you learn ahything? Yes, that is right, you cannot trust what the devs say. As for people not liking PvP, it is natural, SoE had no intent to bring PvP to begin with, so the code was made regarding that. Now they are trying to introduce PvP, but the code resists. They really can't win this one exept by making PvP only servers with proper PvP rules and balance. Then they can rebalance all classes for grouping. But if they dont do this fast, they will lose a lot more customers.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class=date_text>12-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:33 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Now, not to seem picky once again, but this is all irrelevant to what I specifically argued.  I was specifically arguing the statement <em>"</em><span><em>Remember when they mentioned that they are not going to bring PvP to EQ2?" </em></span></p><hr></blockquote>You clearly did not remember or chose once again to twist the truth. Truth is that they did not plan PvP when EQ2 was released. If you claim anything else, you are lying.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>Now, not to seem picky once again, but this is all irrelevant to what I specifically argued.  I was specifically arguing the statement <EM>"</EM><SPAN><EM>Remember when they mentioned that they are not going to bring PvP to EQ2?" </EM></SPAN></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You clearly did not remember or chose once again to twist the truth. Truth is that they did not plan PvP when EQ2 was released. If you claim anything else, you are lying.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>In my first post on the subject I thought I stated that PVP wasn't planned for release.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, I may not have been clear when I said:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><EM>"I recall in posts made on AgeOfDestiny.com long before beta that Moorgard stated <STRONG>there would be no PVP at release</STRONG>.  I recall him specifically asking for a forum post to be created to discuss what would be wanted within a PVP system.  I remember discussions that<STRONG> PVP would eventually be placed within the game, but that we would not expect to see special rules servers at release.</STRONG>"</EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Now, I realize I may not be as versed in language as you are, but perhaps you could explain the difference between <EM>"...they did not plan PvP when EQ2 was released"</EM> and <EM>"I recall...Moorgard stated there would be no PVP at release."</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Nari]

Ha! I already had this argument with him.  The best you guys are going to do will be to get him to admit that the developers change their minds sometimes. My previously perfect record of not being shut down by Raijin has recently been marred, so I say, being right isn't that important. -_- <div></div>

[bigmak20]

<div></div><span>,, deleted; already replied to. </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by bigmak2010 on <span class=date_text>12-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:48 AM</span>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> 3devious wrote:<BR>Ha! I already had this argument with him.  The best you guys are going to do will be to get him to admit that the developers change their minds sometimes. My previously perfect record of not being shut down by Raijin has recently been marred, so I say, being right isn't that important. -_-<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Aye, of course they change their minds.  That's why Moorgard, Blackguard and others take such great pains to state that what they state is only correct when at the time they state it.  It's why you almost never hear "never" or "ever" or any other absolutes.  The development plan isn't written in stone, and often times they change course on features that players have gotten used to. </P> <P>For example, a pet project of mine since release has been Guild Levelling.  At first, you couldn't earn status or spend it if you weren't a patron in a guild <EM>and</EM> were a citizen of the city the guild was registered to.  Guild leaders had to keep the contribution levels of their patrons relatively close together, or risk a higher degree of Guild status decay.  If a patron left your guild, you lost that patrons contributions and the patron lost his or her own personal status (though this last part was later admitted to be a bug).  Obviously, all of this changed over time...and not completely in ways I agreed with.  That doesn't mean the developers have lied.  It means that the development course took a different turn.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[bigmak20]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> Kendricke wrote: <p>Now, not to seem picky once again, but this is all irrelevant to what I specifically argued.  I was specifically arguing the statement <em>"</em><span><em>Remember when they mentioned that they are not going to bring PvP to EQ2?" </em></span></p> <hr> </blockquote>You clearly did not remember or chose once again to twist the truth. Truth is that they did not plan PvP when EQ2 was released. If you claim anything else, you are lying.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <div>In my first post on the subject I thought I stated that PVP wasn't planned for release.  </div> <div> </div> <div>However, I may not have been clear when I said:</div> <blockquote dir="ltr"> <div><em>"I recall in posts made on AgeOfDestiny.com long before beta that Moorgard stated <strong>there would be no PVP at release</strong>.  I recall him specifically asking for a forum post to be created to discuss what would be wanted within a PVP system.  I remember discussions that<strong> PVP would eventually be placed within the game, but that we would not expect to see special rules servers at release.</strong>"</em></div></blockquote> <div>Now, I realize I may not be as versed in language as you are, but perhaps you could explain the difference between <em>"...they did not plan PvP when EQ2 was released"</em> and <em>"I recall...Moorgard stated there would be no PVP at release."</em></div> <div><em></em> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div><hr></blockquote>You're quoting YOURSELF to prove SOEs intent? rofl </span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div>Now, I realize I may not be as versed in language as you are, but perhaps you could explain the difference between <em>"...they did not plan PvP when EQ2 was released"</em> and <em>"I recall...Moorgard stated there would be no PVP at release."</em></div> <hr></blockquote>So, what devs say, isn't usually the final truth. Was that so hard to admit? Now, about your (well, devs actually, like you ever had any own) opinion about game being balanced to PvE. Facts speak for themselves and there is no evidence that this game has been balanced for PvE. On the other hand, everything does indicate that all skills are balanced for PvP. That is why templars will not get any better heals, that is why templars will not get higher DPS and that is why most the ancient scrolls for templars are so crappy. That is also the reason why certain skills for other healers cannot be used for themselves. This balancing for PvP is also the reason why devs are quiet about this. If they stated how they have balanced things, there would be uproar since majority of playwerbase wants balancing around groups, not soloing nor PvP. But since they will also lose customers if PvP is not balanced, they really cannot do anything to fix things. Exept to make totally different ruleset for PvP and PvE. And I dont think they have the skill to do that. Take an example, Reverence is a great heal in PvP since the more you damage the opponent, the more you heal yourself. In PvE it is a crappy one, the templar does not need to cast this spell like ever. Templar can do a lot better job with the reactives and direct heals. PvE is the reason why this spell is not a buff but a 15s duration spell, it is also the same reason why the ratio is so crappy. Now if it was a spell that could not be used to self, templars would not be so good at PvP after lvl 52. </span><div></div>

[KingOfF00LS]

http://www.gamergod.com/article.php?article_id=50&fansite_id=11 "<b>GamerGod</b> - Good and Evil are major themes of EQ2. Is there any effort to increase the value of PvP in EQ2 or is this still a PvE game only, with the option to duel? Will there be a PvP server and/or Team PvP server at release or in the future? <b>EQ2 Dev Team</b> - EverQuest II is a PvE game, and we currently have no plans for PvP servers. Our priority has always been to make a deep, rich player vs. environment experience." <div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KingOfF00LS wrote:<BR>http://www.gamergod.com/article.php?article_id=50&fansite_id=11<BR><BR>"<B>GamerGod</B> - Good and Evil are major themes of EQ2. Is there any effort to increase the value of PvP in EQ2 or is this still a PvE game only, with the option to duel? Will there be a PvP server and/or Team PvP server at release or in the future? <BR><BR><B>EQ2 Dev Team</B> - EverQuest II is a PvE game, and we <STRONG><FONT color=#ff6600>currently </FONT></STRONG>have no plans for PvP servers. Our priority has always been to make a deep, rich player vs. environment experience."<BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR>Exactly.  The general M.O. of game devs is to deny everything until the day it's done ......... unless and *until* it's something they want to make a big marketing campaign on. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>As for the mechanics of PvP, I will again make clear that there are no duels, guild wars, or PvP servers <FONT color=#ff6600><STRONG>currently</STRONG> </FONT>being planned for EverQuest II. Our focus will continue to be on the PvE experience.</DIV> <DIV>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>11-09-2004 <BR><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=1775#M1775" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=1775#M1775</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR>It's simply a feature we decided not to include in EverQuest II. As you point out, there are a lot of options for PvP fans in other SOE games.</DIV> <DIV>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II <BR>11-16-2004<BR><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=20506#M20506" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=20506#M20506</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There are no duels, guild wars, or PvP servers <STRONG><FONT color=#ff6600>currently</FONT> </STRONG>planned for EQII. Our focus will continue to be on enhancing the PvE experience. </DIV> <DIV><BR>Ryan "Blackguard" Shwayder <BR>12-17-2004 <BR><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=72084#M72084" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=72084#M72084</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR>That is either a false copy or a misinformed GM -- we <STRONG><FONT color=#ff6600>currently</FONT> </STRONG>have no plans to implement PvP in EverQuest II (that includes duels, guild wars, PvP servers, etc). </DIV> <DIV>Ryan "Blackguard" Shwayder <BR>12-18-2004 <BR><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=72893#M72893" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=72893#M72893</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR>While this thread isn't out of hand yet, I am closing it down before it does. As others have pointed out, this is a "dead horse" topic. We do not <FONT color=#ff6600><STRONG>currently</STRONG> </FONT>have any plans to implement PvP in EverQuest II. That includes dueling, guild wars, PvP servers, etc. If that ever changes, we will let you know. </DIV> <DIV><BR>Ryan "Blackguard" Shwayder <BR>12-23-2004 <BR><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=15322#M15322" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=15322#M15322</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And then ................<BR>Also, we're taking the first step towards introducing PvP competition with the introduction of a new type of combat!</DIV> <DIV>John Smedley <BR>April 7th, 2005 </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Like I said, deny it until you're ready for the marketing campaign :smileyvery-happy:</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR><BR>I'm not seeing anything contradictory there.  I see a lot of "currently" and not one "never".  </P> <P>Couple this with early quotes from 2003 and you see that they chose early on (over a year prior to release) to postpone PVP till they'd had the game up and running.  Considering EVERY quote from above stating that PVP is not in the game were from September to December 2004 - right prior to and right after release.  At that time, I'm certain they wanted to make it clear this was not a PVP game.</P> <P>Strange thing...it's still not a PVP game.  The ability to duel and to set up arena fights does not a PVP game make.  I'm certain we'll see those PVP servers they talked about back in 2003 sooner or later as well.  Even then, that wouldn't make the game suddenly a PVP game - only a game where PVP is possible on specific servers.</P> <P>In summary, we were informed EARLY on that PVP would be included in Everquest 2.  We were then told it would not be included at release over a year prior to the release.  Even then, we were told that PVP would likely be reconsidered in the future, only that it would not be included at release.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Timaarit]

<P>**REMOVED DUE TO TROLLING**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>12-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:28 PM</span>

[Dalchar]

<span><blockquote><hr>Alephin wrote:<div></div> <p>I definitely consider heals defensive in nature.  The way I would define it if I were balancing classes would be to say that offense is any way of controlling outgoing damage, and defense is any way of controlling incoming damage.  Healing would qualify as defense, because it is removing damage that has come in.  Offensive abilities are damage proc buffs, mitigation debuffs (physical or spell types), nukes, dots, hastes, skill buffs, strength and int buffs, etc.  Defensive abilities, include all heals, wards, stuns, mezzes, stifles, slows, armor class buffs, and avoidance buffs.  Might as well throw hit point buffs in there as well, since having hit points is only important if one is taking damage.  This is not a total list.  In my mind, all combat spells (including resurrections) fall into either the offensive or defensive category.  Some, such as the templar smite, actually have components from both, as useless as a 1 second pacify might be.</p> <p>Utility such as sow and oddysey must be balanced completely separately, in my opinion, because it will almost always take a back seat to combat effectiveness except in very special circumstances.</p> <hr></blockquote>This is all theory and ideas, so don't pound into me I'm just coming up with ideas. Well, when I weas thinking about it.  I was like... okay... all priests need enough healing regardless of whatever it is they do, to keep the group alive, regardless of what kind of dps, utilities, defenses, offenses they throw out there.  I think we can all agree on that.  I think generally that preventing healing from being needed is better than having to heal the majority of the time.  So I got to thinking.  Assume Templar class had everything working peachy keen and had the best defenses in game, assume all is fabulous in your class whether it is or not in your current opinion.  Furies have the least defense in game.  Now, if every class has to have sufficient healing, and the most offensive has no defenses, they probably need more healing to keep their tank alive as the difference between a 30s and 35s or 40s  fight is minor when dead tank = dead tank regardless of how much dps was pumped out.   Now, By having all the peachy keen defenses, the templar may need less healing compared to what fury did to keep the tank alive.  Would having equal healing to fury and have the best defenses trivialize group content? (Well, assuming much anything was really a challenge in this game LOL).  That's kinda something I started wondering on when it came to "equal healing" to all classes regardless of anything else. My idea was that iIf healing is considered a separate variable from offense/defense capabilities and utilities, that might explain why some things are the way they are.</span><div></div>

[Lydiae]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>Now, not to seem picky once again, but this is all irrelevant to what I specifically argued.  I was specifically arguing the statement <EM>"</EM><SPAN><EM>Remember when they mentioned that they are not going to bring PvP to EQ2?" </EM></SPAN></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You clearly did not remember or chose once again to twist the truth. Truth is that they did not plan PvP when EQ2 was released. If you claim anything else, you are lying.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Come on, guys.  "Currently no plans" is <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words" target=_blank>weasle wording</A> at it's best.  When someone says that they can go either way on the subject in the future without technically being wrong or untruthful in the original statement.  The statement is essentially meaningless.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Big corporations tend to employ weasle words as much as possible to cover their tracks.  Usually at the behest of a cadre of lawyers.  The problem is it becomes impossible for anyone to determine their intentions.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't know why SOE's statements are so littered with obfuscations.  Even patch notes always say "Probem X <EM><STRONG>should be</STRONG> </EM>fixed".  The tendency is to either say nothing or say something but utilize weasle words.  If they just came out and said what they're thinking and what they're planning, even if they changed their minds sometimes, I think they would garner a lot more respect and good will than they do now, at least they would from me.  Everyone can understand a change in plans based on the rise of a new situation.  Is someone really going to sue them because they changed their mind and changed the game?</DIV>

[Gcha]

<P>Well, even though this topic is pretty much of a "dead horse", you know, like Blackguard said PvP was on December 23, 2005, I can't resist pointing out that you sort of shot yourself in the foot again there Kendricke.   If we were told "early on" that PvP would be included in EQ2 then they PLANNED to include it at some point.  To later say there were no plans, "currently" or not, is, well, not quite true then, is it.  Call that what you like.  I call it standard, if unfortunate, corporate marketing tactics.</P> <P> Incidentally, are these statements your opinion of what was said, er, "early on", or do you have facts to back them up =)</P> <P>By the way, Mr. Factual Precision, the quotes don't state that PvP "is not in the game".  People can read them ... there is no reason for someone to spin them.  Why don't we try to deal with what was actually said instead of this "creative" paraphrasing.  If you're going to try to hold others to a high standard of factual precision, you might start by applying it to yourself.</P> <P><BR>Lydiaele, you're abolutely right ... there's a lot of weasel wording, and there always is.  It's the way of the modern world (unfortunately).  Weasel wording is often used to make people think you're saying a certain thing, while giving yourself room to get out of it later on. I do this daily =)   In this case, all the weasel words did create the impression they intended to create, which was that there wouldn't be PvP.  For months you could have gone around an endless number of boards on the net and noted that the almost universal belief was that EQ2 wouldn't have PvP, now or in the future.  I, however, believed otherwise (from Day One) ... not because of anything they said, but by application of simple logic, the same logic which tells me that they can't balance PvP without impacting PvE.  For months I told innumerable people that they would be addiding PvP, and without exception, every person I talked to insisted that they would not - based on what they had seen SOE state.</P> <P> </P> <p>Message Edited by Gchang on <span class=date_text>12-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:23 PM</span>

[Kendricke]

<P>Ok, so assume you're right.  Developers lie to us so we can't trust them.  Now, you've also stated that parses and logs aren't reliable.  Obviously we can't count on personal experiences as reliable since we'll all simply relate what we want presented.</P> <P>How do you recommend getting the changes in the game that you want?  What's your plan?</P> <P> </P>

[kenji]

<P>Dalcharis. here is your class balance idea from your msg. Furies have the least defense in game.  Now, if every class has to have sufficient healing, and the most offensive has no defenses, they probably need more healing to keep their tank alive<BR><BR>assume the max setting is 100 heal, 100 defense, 100 offense. set it 200 each priest. i got your msg like this.</P> <P>Templar, 100 heal, 70 defense, 30 offense.<BR>Fury, 150 heal, 20 defense, 100 offense.<BR><BR>so , the heal+defense is balanced within all priest. and we are equal healing.<BR><BR>anything i missed?</P> <P>my dreaming equal like this :<BR>Templar, 100 heal, 70 defense, 30 offense.<BR>Fury, 100 heal, 30 defense, 70 offense.<BR></P>

[Gcha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>Ok, so assume you're right.  Developers lie to us so we can't trust them.  Now, you've also stated that parses and logs aren't reliable.  Obviously we can't count on personal experiences as reliable since we'll all simply relate what we want presented.</P> <P>How do you recommend getting the changes in the game that you want?  What's your plan?<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Those are gross overstatements, and you know it.  I don't look upon it as lying, although I suppose technically it is.  It is simply the way of the business world.  You can't tell your customers everything at all times.   There are very good reasons why game makers conceal, deceive, and, shall we say, "mislead" <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  They're not about to generate a flood of reaction every time they get an idea to change something or do something new.  Game players are a volatile bunch, likely to oevrreact to anything and everything.  Why set that off left and right.  Secondly, to announce some plan prematurely generates a risk of disappointing people if for some reason you can't do what you wanted to do or you later decide it wasn't such a hot idea.   Thirdly, if you annouce, say, that you're going to develop a PvP system before you've got it fairly well planned out, you're going to be buried in suggestions and demands.  And, finally, game companites do want to use big changes and additions in marketing, and there is nothing wrong with that.  If they can't sell enough of their product it hurts the players and the company, so there is nothing wrong with manipulating things for marketing purposes.  Particularly in today's world you have to do this to survive.</P> <P>And I guess it should be mentioned that companies don't want their competition to know their every move and plan instantly.</P> <P>As far as your parses and logs, the topic we were discussing at that time was comparing healing between the priest classes, and the point I raised was that it wasn't feasible in this game to account for all variables ... short of sending it off to MIT for somebody's doctoral project.  I merely stated that I couldn't see any player being willing to put the time in to cover all the variables, and that a mathematical analysis which omitted numerous variables would not only be useless but could also be quite misleading.  On a narrow, finite point, logs and parses are fine.  If I want to see what my DPS is with weapon X vs. weapon Y, no problem ... that's simple.</P> <P>My other point was that your data doesn't matter TO ME, given the nature of my issues with the templar class in this game. You lobby for tweaks.  There simply aren't any tweaks which would satisfy me.  I don't want these spells fixed, I want them gone.  I want the class revamped.  I seek major change, which, of course, is not likely to happen.  I don't really "plan" on getting what I want.  On the basis of hope alone, and because I happen to like being a cleric, I restate my ideas now and then, and if somebody wants to read them and think about them, fine.  If not, that's fine too - I am not a captive here, I have alternatives.  But you and some others may be satisfied with some tweaks.  Great, go for it.  You don't see me interfering in the suggestion threads. </P> <P>For a variety of reasons of which few relate to templar class, it's unlikely that I will remain in this game much longer.  If I do, it's likely that the Fury will be my main, as I simply find it a lot more fun, although I am not enthused about the work to level it up ... I just don't have that much time.  If they happen to fix the cleric more to my liking, fabulous ... I'm sure that would increase the chance of my staying. I do think though that if they fixed the DPS issue that would perk me up a bit because I've been stuck soloing a lot lately and making that faster and more fun would be a real plus.<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gchang on <span class=date_text>12-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:50 PM</span>

[Kendricke]

<P>Gchang,</P> <P>Though I appreciate you raising the issues you find important again.  What I wanted to know was what you feel you're doing to actually get the changes enacted.  How do you recommend getting those changes you'd like actually put into place?  What is your plan, as it were?</P> <P>There's thousands of posts made on these forums each day...sometimes tens of thousands.  How do you intend on making sure those misleading developers pick your posts out of those thousands?</P> <P> </P>

[Dalchar]

<span><blockquote><hr>kenjiso wrote:<div></div> <p>Dalcharis. here is your class balance idea from your msg. Furies have the least defense in game.  Now, if every class has to have sufficient healing, and the most offensive has no defenses, they probably need more healing to keep their tank aliveassume the max setting is 100 heal, 100 defense, 100 offense. set it 200 each priest. i got your msg like this.</p> <p>Templar, 100 heal, 70 defense, 30 offense.Fury, 150 heal, 20 defense, 100 offense.so , the heal+defense is balanced within all priest. and we are equal healing.anything i missed?</p> <p>my dreaming equal like this :Templar, 100 heal, 70 defense, 30 offense.Fury, 100 heal, 30 defense, 70 offense.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Yeah I think that's a good way of showing kinda what I was thinking.  Situation 1 is more closely to what  we see now ie if some templar spells were up to par, regardless of what hey do ie Divine Arb.  Situation 2 there, I think may work, but only in the event that 30 in defense is sufficient to allow the 100 to do the job of primary healing in a group in 90% of situations, including named encounters.  But if 30 in defense  is sufficient to do the job, is the +40 more potentially enough to trivialize?  I would think it may and you'd find another bored set of templars, course it's a simplification and maybe require you to work hard and hopefully in fun ways to utilize that +40 <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.  </span><div></div>

[kenji]

here is my question. why do u choose a templar over a fury now?<BR> <DIV>the Defense buff although i mark at 70, but all most of them single target, why not get a better healer (or best healer) and highest dps priest?</DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Ok, so assume you're right.  Developers lie to us so we can't trust them.  Now, you've also stated that parses and logs aren't reliable.  Obviously we can't count on personal experiences as reliable since we'll all simply relate what we want presented.</p> <p>How do you recommend getting the changes in the game that you want?  What's your plan?</p> <hr></blockquote>/quit account and moving to a game where customers are appreciated seems to be then only way. 3 months left here.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>Ok, so assume you're right.  Developers lie to us so we can't trust them.  Now, you've also stated that parses and logs aren't reliable.  Obviously we can't count on personal experiences as reliable since we'll all simply relate what we want presented.</P> <P>How do you recommend getting the changes in the game that you want?  What's your plan?</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>/quit account and moving to a game where customers are appreciated seems to be then only way. 3 months left here.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm trying to be serious here.  <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What's the plan?  You have concerns.  You have issues.  You have suggestions.  So what's the plan to get those addressed by the developers?  I'm very curious to see what the plan is.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[kenji]

<DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=11132" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=11132</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>the suggestions are all here. doesnt require everyone to make a list, so we should all stick with this (since the Devs have read it, and sticky'd.)<BR><BR>for me, here is the post to prove that the needs of our fix, the idea is all there. to argue the needs of them. that wont break the balance, and hopefully get it done faster. hope that we can have an agreement with Devs and Players (although its ... tough)<BR><BR>for me, quote of what MG / other Devs said is meaningless, the world changes, everyday, today's truth maybe tomorrow's lie. so dont have to quote all the History of what they say, they arent creater(s). means Nothing.<BR>-------------------------------------------------<BR>try to stick with topic : Best Healer.<BR>this topic clearly isnt asking how *broken* is Templar, but try to find out "best healer" atm. since this post isnt how Templar broken/need fix, so actual suggestion isnt needed. u wanna give suggestions , go to the link up there.<BR><BR></DIV><p>Message Edited by kenjiso on <span class=date_text>12-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:34 PM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:I'm trying to be serious here.  <div> </div> <div>What's the plan?  You have concerns.  You have issues.  You have suggestions.  So what's the plan to get those addressed by the developers?  I'm very curious to see what the plan is.  </div> <hr></blockquote>My plan. 1. Stop lying. If game is balanced around PvP, let people know. 2. If it really is, make those PvP servers with different rulesets and rebalance game around both soloing and grouping. Like said, healers dont need any dps in groups so make it so with all priests. Then make different rulesets for soloing. Difference between heroic and solo mobs should really be such that heroics cannot be soloed with any class and any situation. If the rules can be bent in PvP, they sure can be bent in regular vs. heroic. (another reason why I think they lie, they have no means to make that difference between heroics and solo mobs, and they can't do that with PvP either). Basically this means that they need to remake the entire game. And I doubt they will do that. Here we come to no.3 3. Since 1 and 2 are out, combine nearly all classes to 2 subclasses. Two priests are enough now, as are two fighters. Mages and scouts seem to have been designed well so they could mostly stay as they are. But since priests and fighters are not given enough variety, they need to be combined so that the now useless(boring classes can again be played.</span><div></div>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>This is all theory and ideas, so don't pound into me I'm just coming up with ideas.<BR><BR>Well, when I weas thinking about it.  I was like... okay... all priests need enough healing regardless of whatever it is they do, to keep the group alive, regardless of what kind of dps, utilities, defenses, offenses they throw out there.  I think we can all agree on that.  I think generally that preventing healing from being needed is better than having to heal the majority of the time.  So I got to thinking.  Assume Templar class had everything working peachy keen and had the best defenses in game, assume all is fabulous in your class whether it is or not in your current opinion.  Furies have the least defense in game.  Now, if every class has to have sufficient healing, and the most offensive has no defenses, they probably need more healing to keep their tank alive as the difference between a 30s and 35s or 40s  fight is minor when dead tank = dead tank regardless of how much dps was pumped out.   Now, By having all the peachy keen defenses, the templar may need less healing compared to what fury did to keep the tank alive.  Would having equal healing to fury and have the best defenses trivialize group content? (Well, assuming much anything was really a challenge in this game LOL).  That's kinda something I started wondering on when it came to "equal healing" to all classes regardless of anything else. My idea was that iIf healing is considered a separate variable from offense/defense capabilities and utilities, that might explain why some things are the way they are.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I don't think defensive priests necessarily would need to accept less healing to make up for their defense bonus, any more than offensive priests would need to accept less nuking to make up for their intelligence and proc buffing bonus.  It is possible for one priest to have fewer heals than another and still be superior (the defensive shaman would fall into that category when compared to an offensive druid or cleric), but this is not the only way that balance could be accomplished.  In the end, there would need to be full-group content that challenged even defensive priest's abilities.  Of course, these same events would be off limits to an identically levelled offensive priest, but that would be the tradeoff for having better dps, better use as a backup healer, better contributions in small groups, and much faster soloing.  A fury is already superior in all of these cases. </P> <P>The situation that has many defensive priests (specifically templars) up in arms right now is that a large majority of the group content is <EM>already </EM>trivial for them.  The only content that makes my templar even break a sweat in a good group is an orange-con (which are fun to heal for, but are a huge pain to fight because of all the resists) or a tough named.  The same bulk of group content is also trivial for offensive priests, so offensive priests are superior by default because of their greater dps and contributions to those trivial grinding groups.  Now, if you add to that situation that both types of priests can handle that yellow named and that no one likes to fight oranges because of their resists, no group in their right mind would prefer a defensive priest to an offensive one, and your balance is all messed up.</P> <P>The problem I think Sony ran up against before is that since defensive priests (outside of shaman, who were just broken) could heal against a certain level of content, and since it was a such a great advantage to fight it, everyone assumed that that content was what they were supposed to be fighting.  Offensive priests could not keep up.  They went too far in their combat retuning, though, and now many (if not most) people are grinding on easy content, leaving priests with nothing to do but nuke.  Obviously, the offensive/defensive priest balance is not trivial to tune, but it seems like Sony just gave up rather than tweaking it to find a good balance.</P> <P>Alephin<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Alephin on <span class=date_text>12-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:26 AM</span>

[Nari]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: I'm trying to be serious here.  <div> </div> <div>What's the plan?  You have concerns.  You have issues.  You have suggestions.  So what's the plan to get those addressed by the developers?  I'm very curious to see what the plan is.  </div> <div> </div> <hr></blockquote>I know that you didn't ask me, but I am in the mood to toss out 2 cents befor actually doing some work this morning. <font color="#ffffcc">1. Come to the messageboards and see what other templars are reporting of their experiences.</font> -<font color="#00cc00">done and in progress</font> (weeded/ing through fighting and found that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the mess. <font color="#ffffcc">2. Add to the confusion and ask a bunch of stupid questions</font> -<font color="#00cc00">done</font> (wasn't intentional but happened anyway) </span><span><font color="#ffffcc">3. Post some requests and ask less stupid questions</font></span><span> <font color="#ffffff">-</font><font color="#00cc00">done <font color="#ffffff">(I think) <font color="#ffffcc">4. /feedback</font> -<font color="#00cc00">done</font> (what can I say? I'll try anything.) </font></font></span><span> <font color="#ffffcc">5. Wait.</font> -<font color="#ffff00">in progress</font> (the templar is on call or finishing up random things that don't require soloing. My duo partner hasn't been in the mood to play, so the templar is even less appealing.) <font color="#ffffcc">6. Find something else to do.</font> -<font color="#00cc00">done</font> (I still log in, I've taken up a new in game hobby with another character that isn't as fun as playing the templar in the previous days, but seems worth the subscription fee while I still believe that my templar will be fun later.) <font color="#ff3300">7. Cancel Account</font> -<font color="#ffff00">pending</font> (This would happen in the event that my duo partner dropped the game AND my hobby that I do while I wait for some updates no longer held my interest.) That is my plan.  It doesn't really have a time table.  I guess the timetable would be as long as my attention span, which is -oooh! Shiny! *runs away*</span><div></div>

[Gcha]

<DIV>LOL, yeah, my plan is similar to you guys.  I haven't actually played my templar in 5-6 weeks, although he has counted in the online numbers some because of crafting, harvesting, and making some cash to equip another toon.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Actually, I've been playing something else.  That may be all she wrote here - too soon to tell - unless something to my liking happens here fairly soon.  My dissatisfactions are not simply with the templar, but also with the general direction of the game and with what's being delivered for the money.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I figure the game devs have a lot more incentive than I do to improve the game.  I can just jump ship easily enough.  But if I were looking into improving a class, I'd go read through the relevant forums to see what people are saying.  It really isn't nearly as difficult or time-consuming as some say. Of course, in the case of this forum, the task is complicated by the endless posts talking about talking, and we know who's responsible for that, don't we. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My job regularly require me to find out what I need to know.  How about you guys?  Seems to me that's part of many jobs.  So, if you want to do the best job you can, you do what you need to do - you don't say, well, that would be helpful but it would take too much time so I won't do it.  I don't have the luxury of telling my clients "well, that letter you sent me was not in the proper format so I am not going to read it" .... few do.  So, bottom line, I will state my opinions here, send an occasional feedback, and that's it.  I'm going to spend my extra time on my job and my life and let others handle theirs =)</DIV>