Best Healer [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Caethre

11-18-2005, 07:11 PM

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nindor2 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>Ho hum ... SoE will get the message ... eventually.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>What message? There is no message. As long as even we templars cannot agree whether we even have a problem, there is absolutely no pressure or message there for the devs. Zero. Nada.<BR><BR>I would bet some money (if i had any to spare) that we see major upgrades to shaman/druid classes or nerfs for clerics before we see any cleric improvements. These guys know how to make a case for themselves. We seem to be glutton for punishment. We will likely never unite, not even if they nurf us to the healing and dps of a L20 druid. There will still be people applauding the changes, welcoming the changes, and claiming they still get groups and all is fine.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well, maybe.</P> <P>You are correct, we will never all 'unite'.</P> <P>There will always be a small number of the raiding templars (and I mean only a few of them) who truely do not care if we are not balanced for soloing and normal grouping, becuase they are only interested in their own playstyle, not in the good of the class as a whole in the context of wider game balance - indeed, some of them actually WANT non-hardcore raiders to be nerfed in general. This group will fall in line more when raiding Templars are starting to become prejudiced against in raids the same way normal Templars are already being prejudiced against in solo and group settings, of course.</P> <P>And we will still always have those same two or three fanboys, with many thousands of posts, who will praise our class no matter how 'gimped' we become, and launch personal attacks on any who disagree, successfully bullying some of us off the boards, you are correct again.</P> <P>And finally, we will still have a few non-Templars without the knowledge of our class that we have, coming here telling us to "stop whining", for their own self-oriented purposes.</P> <P>Yes, these groups all hurt our case, because they obfuscate the situation with pure noise. And yes, some of them even then describe the observations from the hundreds of us all making the same observations as the "noise". So be it, we cannot change it.</P> <P>But ....</P> <P>SOE are not, whatever anyone says, stupid. They do care about game balance issues, I really believe that.</P> <P>Once they look, they will see what is blindingly obvious to those of us who play every day. I suspect, they are already looking at it, to be honest. I just WISH they would post something, somewhere, to tell us.</P> <DIV>Felishanna / Annaelisa</DIV>

quetzaqotl

11-18-2005, 07:50 PM

<P>Id recommend you look up the thread ( <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=16&message.id=10861&page=3" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=16&message.id=10861&page=3</A> ) Dal posted.</P> <P>Instead of windmilling your arms around with your eyes closed screaming furies roxxxorrrzzz we so [Removed for Content]!</P> <P>Templars do heal better by quite a stretch also furies arent in tier 1 or 2 for dps thats a blatant lie in ideal situations (in some raids) with LOADS of mobs and short kill time yes we do dmg hard but thats really situational.</P> <P>Why do I bother posting on this thread (again /sigh)?</P> <P>Its because I love my class and if you think its unbalanced sure go for it but please dont lose the view of the facts please (pls stop running around without stopping and thinking what you are exactly following).</P> <P>(Yeah yeah another stupid post from me the fury fanboi from hell :smileywink: )</P> <p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:51 AM</span>

Badfeeling

11-18-2005, 07:51 PM

<P>Hi Guys!</P> <P>I normally just read this forum but I never comment but today I thought I would throw in my pennoes worth. I have a lvl 40 Templar on Blackburrow. She is a Barbarian...so starts at a slight disadvantage on WIS and INT...not AdeptIIIs and Silvril Plate. </P> <P>I admit that before the CU she was AWESOME in soloing and I really enjoyed playing her. But now I tend to group all the time and I enjoy keeping the group alive and I wont be the first person to say she does a GOOD job.</P> <P>My comments are that I have played in groups where there have been two other types of healers at the same level (including Fury) and always in a crunch my Templar has been the last Healer standing and healing. So </P>

Dalchar

11-18-2005, 08:20 PM

<div></div><div>Actually guys, ignore *my* thread above, I'm doing something different as I think it needs to be looked at, chances are furies may not actually be 33% like those theoretical numbers show, as I realized a few things... while chaincasting even in optimal timeframes, you end up with overlaping cast/recast... you can't cast something else while you're casting another spell already... SOOO lemmie finish plugging numbers into a pretty spreadsheet <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Edit: When I said ignore the thread above, I meant *MY* thread, not the person directly above me. </div><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class=date_text>11-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:27 PM</span>

bigmak20

11-18-2005, 08:20 PM

<DIV>1) IMO it's the ancient spells scrolls that push the Fury several steps ahead to "Best Healer". Comparing our standard spell lines we're all reasonably close. Furies getting two direct heals on seperate timers to add to their arsenal? It's very biased compared to our 15 min recast tricks. Sanctuary is really nice but I'd trade it in a second for a direct heal on a seperate timer. But why should I have to?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) When you look at a Furies healing utilities you realize it's pathetic for people to tell Templar's their utility is healing. So is other priests. They get other stuff in addition to their utility healing but we aren't allowed to talk about that. I'm actually quite mad I didn't look at other priests utility before this. I took some peoples word for it that a Templar's utility was healing. Other priests get plenty of healing utility also -- it isn't a Templar thing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3) We all know DPS is ridiculous but we aren't allowed to talk about that either.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SO... shoot down one of those 3 points based on some little trick you can think of that looks uber enough to make up for it. You're still left with the other 2. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It isn't balanced at all. Not even close.</DIV>

SenorPhrog

11-18-2005, 08:29 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR> <DIV>1) IMO it's the ancient spells scrolls that push the Fury several steps ahead to "Best Healer". Comparing our standard spell lines we're all reasonably close. Furies getting two direct heals on seperate timers to add to their arsenal? It's very biased compared to our 15 min recast tricks. Sanctuary is really nice but I'd trade it in a second for a direct heal on a seperate timer. But why should I have to?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) When you look at a Furies healing utilities you realize it's pathetic for people to tell Templar's their utility is healing. So is other priests. They get other stuff in addition to their utility healing but we aren't allowed to talk about that. I'm actually quite mad I didn't look at other priests utility before this. I took some peoples word for it that a Templar's utility was healing. Other priests get plenty of healing utility also -- it isn't a Templar thing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3) We all know DPS is ridiculous but we aren't allowed to talk about that either.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SO... shoot down one of those 3 points based on some little trick you can think of that looks uber enough to make up for it. You're still left with the other 2. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It isn't balanced at all. Not even close.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Now don't get the idea I'm defending Furies because I'm not. Your first arguement is difficult to look at over the whole class because you are only talking the last 16 % of the game. You can't really base an entire classes balance over the end game. I'm not saying you are wrong about your assesment though.</P> <P>Your second arguement, I'd love to see a little more work done defining where our healing utlitity lies because I'll admit thats hard to gauge. If any work is going to be done with Templars thats probably where it needs to be done.</P> <P>DPS arguement we can talk about all day but like they (not me) stated our utlitiy should lie in healing not in DPS. Maybe I'm a pessimist but I can't seeing that getting very far.</P>

bigmak20

11-18-2005, 08:47 PM

Responses in <FONT color=#ffff00>Yellow<BR></FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR> <DIV>1) IMO it's the ancient spells scrolls that push the Fury several steps ahead to "Best Healer". Comparing our standard spell lines we're all reasonably close. Furies getting two direct heals on seperate timers to add to their arsenal? It's very biased compared to our 15 min recast tricks. Sanctuary is really nice but I'd trade it in a second for a direct heal on a seperate timer. But why should I have to?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) When you look at a Furies healing utilities you realize it's pathetic for people to tell Templar's their utility is healing. So is other priests. They get other stuff in addition to their utility healing but we aren't allowed to talk about that. I'm actually quite mad I didn't look at other priests utility before this. I took some peoples word for it that a Templar's utility was healing. Other priests get plenty of healing utility also -- it isn't a Templar thing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3) We all know DPS is ridiculous but we aren't allowed to talk about that either.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SO... shoot down one of those 3 points based on some little trick you can think of that looks uber enough to make up for it. You're still left with the other 2. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It isn't balanced at all. Not even close.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Now don't get the idea I'm defending Furies because I'm not. Your first arguement is difficult to look at over the whole class because you are only talking the last 16 % of the game. You can't really base an entire classes balance over the end game. I'm not saying you are wrong about your assesment though.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>However... SOE balanced healing. It looks to me like they forgot to consider healing balance when they were handing out ancient spell scrolls. Those two direct heals on seperate timers with short recasts need to be added to every single chart comparing priests core healing. It's very unbalanced.</FONT></P> <P>Your second arguement, I'd love to see a little more work done defining where our healing utlitity lies because I'll admit thats hard to gauge. If any work is going to be done with Templars thats probably where it needs to be done.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Agreed. My point is other priests have very nice utility healing not just us. So I can't accept the arguement that our utility is healing any longer -- unless it gets dialed up a lot.</FONT></P> <P>DPS arguement we can talk about all day but like they (not me) stated our utlitiy should lie in healing not in DPS. Maybe I'm a pessimist but I can't seeing that getting very far.</P><FONT color=#ffff00>Yeah. Ouch. Where it hurts is the healing comparison that throw the DPS salt on the wound. .... grrr<BR></FONT> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Danter

11-18-2005, 09:09 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>Now don't get the idea I'm defending Furies because I'm not. Your first arguement is difficult to look at over the whole class because you are only talking the last 16 % of the game. You can't really base an entire classes balance over the end game. I'm not saying you are wrong about your assesment though.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Generally the end game spells scale the same way as the lower ones do, they just do more damage or in priest's case, heal for more. Right now, Templars are not balanced compared to Furies in soloing and grouping. Templars are balanced (or slightly superrior) to Furies in raiding.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Like I said before, you can easily compare a Templar to a Guardian in terms of the class problems. They have the same problems where they are not balanced in terms of grouping and soloing, but they are balanced (for the most part) in terms of raiding.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So you basically have a class that is balanced for 5% of the content that 75% of the class will never take advantage of. Right now, when you choose the Templar or Guardian class, the trainer's message should have an asterik next to it because these classes only really work in raids.</DIV>

Kendricke

11-18-2005, 09:09 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Danterus wrote:<BR> <P>Then you'll have the Furies running over here saying that Templars are "better healers" because they'll do anything they can to protect their current god-like status from being nerfed.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Since we're on the subject of conspiracies now, one could also argue that:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>...Templars could creature Furies to claim their Furies are better, thus getting Furies lessened and/or Templars boosted in the process.</P> <P>...Templars could exaggerate claims that we're no longer the best healers in order to try to "do anything they can to protect their current" best healer status from being "nerfed".</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR></P> <DIV>It's a fun game to play. I recommend everyone pick up a copy of "Slippery Slope" today. You'll find it in the "Fallacies are Fun" aisle of your local Debates R Us store.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Seriously, these type of arguments only create more animosity between the Templar and Fury communities. Do we not have enough already?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>11-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:15 AM</span>

SenorPhrog

11-18-2005, 09:26 PM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Danterus wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>Now don't get the idea I'm defending Furies because I'm not. Your first arguement is difficult to look at over the whole class because you are only talking the last 16 % of the game. You can't really base an entire classes balance over the end game. I'm not saying you are wrong about your assesment though.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Generally the end game spells scale the same way as the lower ones do, they just do more damage or in priest's case, heal for more. Right now, Templars are not balanced compared to Furies in soloing and grouping. Templars are balanced (or slightly superrior) to Furies in raiding.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Like I said before, you can easily compare a Templar to a Guardian in terms of the class problems. They have the same problems where they are not balanced in terms of grouping and soloing, but they are balanced (for the most part) in terms of raiding.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So you basically have a class that is balanced for 5% of the content that 75% of the class will never take advantage of. Right now, when you choose the Templar or Guardian class, the trainer's message should have an asterik next to it because these classes only really work in raids.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I think you're first statement is a little skewed. Generally you're right they do scale but the late T5/T6 spells add a little bit of "flavor" to the different classes. You can look at things like Reverence and Glory of Combat and those are nothing like you'd see in the earlier forms of Templar. I disagree with you about Furies being better than Templars in grouping. Maybe if you are speaking in terms of "additional utility" yes but from a healing standpoint I think they match up pretty darn well if not giving a Templar a slight edge.<BR></DIV>

Caethre

11-18-2005, 09:41 PM

<P>OOC.</P> <P>Right now, after putting time and effort into Annaelisa, I would be very angry if SoE's "solution" to these issues were simply to "nerf" the Fury class. The Fury class is fun, interesting and feels balanced. It is what an EQII class should be, and doesn't need any major alterations. Most Furies I've spoken to are quite happy with their class now in general. It would be really unfair, to say that those of us playing Furies since LU15 are quietly are hoping for a nerf of that class, because it would be so untrue. I cannot *prove* that is not my motive, but it would really make no sense to destroy a lot of people's fun (including my own) to wish for such a horrid thing. In the end, you will decide for yourself, what the motives of others are.</P> <P>Besides, this is not a Fury-specific issue. We could compare Templars and Wardens, and find Templars wanting in area of DPS and Utility as well, just by not quite so large a margin. And the same across all six priest classes. This is an archetype issue, caused by rebalancing one factor without also rebalancing the others. It needs looking at carefully, so I can understand SoE taking their time over it, to be honest.</P> <P>But really, what it seems most of us want, is for Templars to not be the red-headed step children, but rather, to feel worthwhile. This can be achieved with some targetted changes to several priest classes, including Templar, and this is what most of us are calling for.</P> <P>Whilst I can solo more than twice, sometimes more than three times as fast, with my Fury priest than my Templar priest, I will post that as a problem to be addressed.</P> <P>Whilst I can join a group of 2 or 3 people, and contribute less to that group as a Templar than as a Fury, so much so that the XP gained by that group is so much lower that I feel I am penalizing my groupmates by them grouping with me because of my class, I will post that as a problem to be addressed.</P> <P>And whilst I see Templar after Templar posting the same unhappy posts, quitting, retiring, or making alts, all because of both real and perceived major weakness in the Templar class compared to Furies and, indeed, all other priest classes, I will post that as a problem to be addressed.</P> <P>This all feels wrong. Even the hardest fanatical 'we are fine' adherent must have detected it by now, and it is not hysteria, it is empirical fact.</P> <P>But don't ascribe nasty motives to us about other classes, speaking in riddles about fallacies and slippery slopes - that is all just semantic wordplay. Underneath all this is genuine concern about a class we feel passionate about, and want to see fixed. Yes, it is broken for some styles of play, even if a few players can't see it, it is no less true because they can't.</P> <P>BUT ... I would hate anyone to touch the Fury class. Just balance the others against where Fury is now, for damage and utility, and we will have to accept equal healing and get on with playing (and we can then stop posting the same points here).</P> <P>Felishanna [53 Templar]<BR>Annaelisa [40 Fury]</P> <P> </P>

Danter

11-18-2005, 09:51 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>I disagree with you about Furies being better than Templars in grouping. Maybe if you are speaking in terms of "additional utility" yes but from a healing standpoint I think they match up pretty darn well if not giving a Templar a slight edge.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok, so if Templars have a slight edge in healing. Furies have a major edge in DPS and overall fluff utility like group invis and SoW.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Explain to me and the rest of the posters in this thread how this is "balanced"?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And the reason why Templars are in the MT group in raids isn't because of their healing. It's because of spells that are generally useful only in raids like Sanctuary along with their buffs like Redoubt, Benediction, and Valor.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Danterus on <span class=date_text>11-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:53 AM</span>

Timaarit

11-18-2005, 09:58 PM

<div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:Something interesting we did last night on the warden board, actually 2-3 of us did the math all at once, it was kinda funny, everyone was just bored it seems and someone requested a mathematical comparison, so we all went and got a calculator it seemed LOL.http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=16&message.id=10861&page=3<hr></blockquote>Just have to answer this, following is quoted from the link</span><hr><span></span>Dalcharis wrote:<blockquote>Please correct my math if you find anything wrong.Salve 583.5 * 10 = 5835 hp in 60sElixir = 6216 hp in 60s.Streams... 899* 10 = 8990 in 60sBliss.... 1660.5* 5 = 8300 + 1 more cast with just one more tick on it (2.5s were left in the minute... I don't know if the first tick is immediate or waits the 1s.) so add 93.5 + 725... 8300 + 93.5 + 725 = 9118.5hp in 60sSo... Grand total using just the main line direct heals at 60...<b>Fury = 12051 hp in 1 minuteWarden = 18108.5 hp in 1 minute.</b><hr></blockquote>Here is the deal for mighty templars:Greater Amelioration lvl 57, Adept IIIHeals for 757-926 (average 841), 2s cast, 6s recast = 6300 hitpoints per minuteGreater restoration lvl 60, Adept IIIHeals for 1399-1709 (average 1113), 3s cast, 11,5s recast = 6400 hp per minuteThis equals <b>12700 hp per minute for templar direct heals</b>So templar direct heals are actually equal to fury heals. Or were if there weren't any other direct heals for furies.So next time you claim templars heal better, do the math first to the end. Furies are equal from the start and far better after lvl 52. Wardens are better to begin with. But maybe this is why you didn't include templars to your calculations.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class=date_text>11-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:59 PM</span>

SenorPhrog

11-18-2005, 09:58 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Danterus wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>I disagree with you about Furies being better than Templars in grouping. Maybe if you are speaking in terms of "additional utility" yes but from a healing standpoint I think they match up pretty darn well if not giving a Templar a slight edge.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok, so if Templars have a slight edge in healing. Furies have a major edge in DPS and overall fluff utility like group invis and SoW.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Explain to me and the rest of the posters in this thread how this is "balanced"?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And the reason why Templars are in the MT group in raids isn't because of their healing. It's because of spells that are generally only useful only in raids like Sanctuary and for Redoubt and Valor.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I'll explain to the posters in this thread how this is "balanced" as soon as you can show me where I said it was. I think its problematic at best to compare Furies and Templars especially at the higher end game because of the variance in the spells. I didn't at any point in here say it was right as things are. In fact I said up front to the OP that I wasn't defending Furies.</P> <P>As for raiding? I can't speak to it. I don't do it very often.</P>

OlaeviaTraisharan

11-18-2005, 10:03 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <P>OOC.</P> <P>Right now, after putting time and effort into Annaelisa, I would be very angry if SoE's "solution" to these issues were simply to "nerf" the Fury class. The Fury class is fun, interesting and feels balanced. It is what an EQII class should be, and doesn't need any major alterations. Most Furies I've spoken to are quite happy with their class now in general.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Oh I BET they're happy... they got bumped when Warden's were bumped and only because it was a change applied to druid spells and not Warden-specific spells.</P> <P>So now you have a class that can:</P> <P>A) Heal as well as a Templar</P> <P>B) Have the utility of a druid (sow, invis, group invis, etc.)</P> <P>C) Nuke for three times as much as a Templar</P> <P>What's going to give? Because right now something is going to have to, which is the TRUE nature of class balance.</P> <P>I can see why you don't want them nerfed... you're playing one <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

Andu

11-18-2005, 10:15 PM

<P>Caethra has defended herself more than well enough. However, can I just say Kendricke that your latest suggestion that we are now all playing other classes in an attempt to get them nerfed is probably the stupidest thing Ive heard from you in a long time and that's saying something.</P> <P>I've started a Defiler alt, not to see it be nerfed after putting a lot of time into it, but to try and enjoy the game again after SOE ripped the heart out of the Templar class. So far Im enjoying it a lot. Im still far too low in level to make any meaningful comparison so I won't attempt to.</P> <P>You just managed to make me so angry that I am now risking getting the sack at work just to log in to this god awful board and vent a little.</P>

Lego

11-18-2005, 10:17 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> OlaeviaTraisharan wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <P>OOC.</P> <P>Right now, after putting time and effort into Annaelisa, I would be very angry if SoE's "solution" to these issues were simply to "nerf" the Fury class. The Fury class is fun, interesting and feels balanced. It is what an EQII class should be, and doesn't need any major alterations. Most Furies I've spoken to are quite happy with their class now in general.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Oh I BET they're happy... they got bumped when Warden's were bumped and only because it was a change applied to druid spells and not Warden-specific spells.</P> <P>So now you have a class that can:</P> <P>A) Heal as well as a Templar</P> <P>B) Have the utility of a druid (sow, invis, group invis, etc.)</P> <P>C) Nuke for three times as much as a Templar</P> <P>What's going to give? Because right now something is going to have to, which is the TRUE nature of class balance.</P> <P>I can see why you don't want them nerfed... you're playing one <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>That's not entirely correct actually, the entire Warden healing line had a much needed increase. A Fury only received an upgrade to their regens. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Lego23 on <SPAN class=date_text>11-18-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:18 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Lego23 on <span class=date_text>11-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:50 AM</span>

Stjarna Kvar

11-18-2005, 10:23 PM

I couldn't do the gobbies in lavastorm at lvl 45 with a lvl 46 guardian in front of me... I must be a loser.<p>Message Edited by Stjarna Kvarco on <span class=date_text>11-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:34 AM</span>

Dalchar

11-18-2005, 10:39 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:Something interesting we did last night on the warden board, actually 2-3 of us did the math all at once, it was kinda funny, everyone was just bored it seems and someone requested a mathematical comparison, so we all went and got a calculator it seemed LOL.http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=16&message.id=10861&page=3<hr></blockquote>Just have to answer this, following is quoted from the link</span><hr><span></span>Dalcharis wrote:<blockquote>Please correct my math if you find anything wrong.Salve 583.5 * 10 = 5835 hp in 60sElixir = 6216 hp in 60s.Streams... 899* 10 = 8990 in 60sBliss.... 1660.5* 5 = 8300 + 1 more cast with just one more tick on it (2.5s were left in the minute... I don't know if the first tick is immediate or waits the 1s.) so add 93.5 + 725... 8300 + 93.5 + 725 = 9118.5hp in 60sSo... Grand total using just the main line direct heals at 60...<b>Fury = 12051 hp in 1 minuteWarden = 18108.5 hp in 1 minute.</b><hr></blockquote>Here is the deal for mighty templars:Greater Amelioration lvl 57, Adept IIIHeals for 757-926 (average 841), 2s cast, 6s recast = 6300 hitpoints per minuteGreater restoration lvl 60, Adept IIIHeals for 1399-1709 (average 1113), 3s cast, 11,5s recast = 6400 hp per minuteThis equals <b>12700 hp per minute for templar direct heals</b>So templar direct heals are actually equal to fury heals. Or were if there weren't any other direct heals for furies.So next time you claim templars heal better, do the math first to the end. Furies are equal from the start and far better after lvl 52. Wardens are better to begin with. But maybe this is why you didn't include templars to your calculations.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class="date_text">11-18-2005</span> <span class="time_text">06:59 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote> This is why I asked later in this thread to ignore the previous thread... I should have edited it out until I could have done this. And no I hadn't planned on doing templar... Spagma posted templars but I don't think we really delved into it as it was mainly a warden and I read somewhere warden = templar and completley forgot about the odds and ends of recast times on yours being different, honest mistake on my part actually, then I thought about it later, and bring you this!! I was at work and plotted this stuff into an excel spreadsheet out of sheer boredom. Templars seem caught be this issue: Recast time... not so much the time itself, but when things pop back up for reuse. Theoretically, if you could chaincast without regard to what's up... a T5 Templar would heal 8561 at 60s and 10261 at 61s. Theoretically, if furies could do the same, a T5 fury would heal for 8532 at 60s. Theoretically, if wardens could do the same, a T5 warden would heal for 11605 at 60s. (and I tell you plotting out warden heals in a spreadsheet sucks). When you line everything up for the classes, so that they're not casting a heal at the same time as another heal... casting small DH and then large DH... it lines up like this: Templar: 9148 at 60s and at 61s. Fury: 8522 at 60s and 8929 at 61s Warden: 11912.5 at 60s, and 12335 at 61s. So... The original thread was partly correct--with furies in relation to warden, furies are about 33% behind warden, but are about 7% behind Templar once you start digging farther in. ---------- Course, then this makes us all have to wonder about the dispairity too between say temp and warden, as it's around 20% for temps and 33% for furies.. I'm thinking it's not really intentional really. shave off 1s of each templar heal and it'd probably help with the screwball cast time pop-- (if I remember right, there was twice where templars are casting one while another popped like half a second or one second into the cast... for druids that's not a big deal as we cast fast, for templars it slows you down.) ----------- I'm sure people think I'm out to thwart the Templar or something but that's honestly not the case. I realized the error and got to thinking it wouln't be simple as just dividing cast times/recast times etc due to the longer casts, so felt to do it right. Chances are best solution-- unlink BOVirtuous for everyone. Furies aren't likely to use it post 52, at least not much. And most of the other classes would definately find a use for it throughout their entire career...</span><div></div>

Gcha

11-18-2005, 10:50 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Danterus wrote:<BR> <P>Then you'll have the Furies running over here saying that Templars are "better healers" because they'll do anything they can to protect their current god-like status from being nerfed.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Since we're on the subject of conspiracies now, one could also argue that:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>...Templars could creature Furies to claim their Furies are better, thus getting Furies lessened and/or Templars boosted in the process.</P> <P>...Templars could exaggerate claims that we're no longer the best healers in order to try to "do anything they can to protect their current" best healer status from being "nerfed".</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR></P> <DIV>It's a fun game to play. I recommend everyone pick up a copy of "Slippery Slope" today. You'll find it in the "Fallacies are Fun" aisle of your local Debates R Us store.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Seriously, these type of arguments only create more animosity between the Templar and Fury communities. Do we not have enough already?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P> <P>Message Edited by Kendricke on <SPAN class=date_text>11-18-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>08:15 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Good lord Kendricke. That borders on disturbing. You're scaring me here =) You may really want to think about editing this.</P> <P>I have a Fury now (only 20) ... yes, last minute I decided to make him a Fury instead of of a Warden. Anyway, I will guaran-dang-tee you that I didn't make him as part of some grand conspiracy to get Furies nerfed and Templars buffed (and I don't believe for a second that anyone else around here did that either). Wow, I am almost speehless at this theory ... and that's saying something, lol.</P> <P>I made him for fun, and to compare. And you know what, he's a ton of fun so far. That's why I play the game. Heck, I am going to be really [Removed for Content] if they nerf Furies now, lol. And if they give templars some love, well, it's all good, then I will have a better choice, because lately I can't wait to get online to play my druid. which, incidentally, feels a lot more like a cleric should feel **IMO** than the clerics do.</P> <P><BR>Olaevia, I really think you should stop lobbying for Furies to be nerfed. That isn't going to help templars one bit.</P> <P>And as for the other posters above, I have INT gear on my templar for soloing =) Works darn good =)<BR></P>

Nindor2

11-18-2005, 10:58 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Radar-X wrote:<p>You don't see the anger and resentment on the other Priest boards so yeah I can see why the Devs would look at their issues but I bet you they have been looking at ours as well. The part you fell short on was "welcoming the changes, and applauding the changes." Perhaps first of all you can be more specific about which "changes" you're talking about. If you're still talking about LU#13 its not going anywhere so I'd hope you'd try and let it go. I enjoy that I'm more challenged after those particular changes but I don't ever remember applauding them. I think you are exaggerating this part of your post. I see a majority of complaints up here not praise.</p><hr></blockquote> Maybe i should have expanded on some points, but it would have substracted from the total statement. In my personal opinion clerics are a lot better off than a lot of people claim, but on the other hand they are off a lot worse than some people claim. My argumentation is just from experience from EQ1. There druids argued on the healing front and got to be a serious competition for all but the hardest content for templars there. They argued the DPS front, and managed to get close to the pure DPS classes. The proofs that templars are still 30% in front of furies in healing will more than likely lead to furies getting that gap closed (without taking the ancients into calculation). Also if any priests get DPS upgrades, it will be more than likely all 6 classes equally (or the "damage priests" more than any? Why you ask? Because they want it, and they know that they want it, and they articulate that they need it. I have worked all my life after university in software development and software/hardware support. Nobody gets anything because they need it, or its fair or even because they paid for it. You get support or features because you complain loud enough, you know how to complain and whom to complain to. Any development team on any given software is understaffed. You cannot worry about everything that is amiss. So you work on what makes the highest impact. That is usally what you get the loudest complaints about. As for applauding good changes, where are they? The only templar specific change i can remember since LU#13 is the nerf to Reverence (which i bought an Adpet 3 for a few days before the nerf). Again, i don't think templars are really bad off atm. But i am very sure it will get worse in time. </span><div></div>

KingOfF00LS

11-18-2005, 11:36 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:<span> When you line everything up for the classes, so that they're not casting a heal at the same time as another heal... casting small DH and then large DH... it lines up like this: Templar: 9148 at 60s and at 61s. Fury: 8522 at 60s and 8929 at 61s Warden: 11912.5 at 60s, and 12335 at 61s. </span><div></div><hr></blockquote>This is seemingly pretty damning evidence at first glance. The healing difference between Templar and Fury is so slight as to be unnoticable in anything other than a "laboratory" type environment. And yet the huge discrepancy in DPS between the two classes remains. At the same time look at Warden heals obliterating the competition, but at the same time having more DPS and utility in my experience than a Templar does by far. These would seem to be pretty important numbers for higher ups to be looking at and indicative of what a lot of us have been saying, no? </span><div></div>

OlaeviaTraisharan

11-18-2005, 11:40 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Gchang wrote:</P> <P>Olaevia, I really think you should stop lobbying for Furies to be nerfed. That isn't going to help templars one bit.</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I'm not lobbying for anything. I could care less. I pay for the game to worry about my own characters, not other peoples'.</DIV>

Mor

11-18-2005, 11:51 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>KingOfF00LS wrote:<span><blockquote><hr><span> </span><hr></blockquote>This is seemingly pretty damning evidence at first glance. The healing difference between Templar and Fury is so slight as to be unnoticable in anything other than a "laboratory" type environment. And yet the huge discrepancy in DPS between the two classes remains. At the same time look at Warden heals obliterating the competition, but at the same time having more DPS and utility in my experience than a Templar does by far. These would seem to be pretty important numbers for higher ups to be looking at and indicative of what a lot of us have been saying, no? </span><hr></blockquote> </span>Looking at the numbers doesn't tell you the whole story. In reality, true direct heals are far more powerful and efficient than a 40% heal with a HoT component. Although we're far better off than we were before the recent changes, wardens still can't deal with spike damage the way that the other priests can (which is really the whole point of using a direct heal). The larger heal amount is designed to compensate for the lack of instant delivery, although it really doesn't. <div></div>

Dalchar

11-19-2005, 03:44 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Morie wrote:<span> <blockquote><hr>KingOfF00LS wrote:<span> <blockquote><hr><span></span></blockquote>This is seemingly pretty damning evidence at first glance. The healing difference between Templar and Fury is so slight as to be unnoticable in anything other than a "laboratory" type environment. And yet the huge discrepancy in DPS between the two classes remains. At the same time look at Warden heals obliterating the competition, but at the same time having more DPS and utility in my experience than a Templar does by far. These would seem to be pretty important numbers for higher ups to be looking at and indicative of what a lot of us have been saying, no? </span> <hr></blockquote></span>Looking at the numbers doesn't tell you the whole story. In reality, true direct heals are far more powerful and efficient than a 40% heal with a HoT component. Although we're far better off than we were before the recent changes, wardens still can't deal with spike damage the way that the other priests can (which is really the whole point of using a direct heal). The larger heal amount is designed to compensate for the lack of instant delivery, although it really doesn't. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Yeah that's kinda what we're all having difficulty trying to figure out... I think. We know for a fact that wardens had issues healing with healing due to fury-esque small heals, even with the faster cast times. Then they got beefed, and now they heal adequately. Personally (and as a few furies have mentioned in other various fury threads) As a fury (pre-regen bump) from 50-52 was miserable healing w/o BITF, as tiny heals + regen wasn't sufficient unless the mobs were blue to the tank (where the tank got a bonus to mitigation to the mobs), and if it was a named, forget it. BITF pumps fury up to warden levels situationally. So the moral of that story, was that small heals unless the tank is super beefy do not generally suffice in dealing with damage, especially in the event of large spikes and espeically against harder content (named, higher level mobs, etc). I know temps can reduce incoming dps with pacifies and stuns. How effective that is or isn't varies from one temp to the next many give differing reports. From a direct heal standpoint, I'm guessing we all pale in comparison to warden up until 52... and I can't remember what level the shamen get their other healing pets, and torpor and the like... How effective all the other utilities and heals bump everyone else up is what's kinda making for screwy issues of comparisons. From just looking at direct heals, I'd say Templar recasts need altered/varied or cast times altered/varied slightly, mainly because when I lined them all up, they're sitting on heals waiting to be used because they're casting the other heal if they're chaining twice in the 60seconds, making for about 5 additional seconds of nothing they can do as they're already casting the heal...whereas to furies and wardens, it's maybe 1s that make sense? And when they had the idea of warden = templar heals I think they forgot the entire alteration of cast/recast time so that in someway shape or form, templar may have gotten lost in the mix of it.... from a heal amt standpoint it's the same but not so much in a hp/min standpoint. I'm guessing the overall effectiveness and stacking of the group reactives and wards that allow them to function as a single target is what allows them to compete with warden's overall general healing splurge. /shrug, it's all guestimations. Really--what'd be nice, so that, well, all of us would stop having to guess... would be a bit of breakdown in their general "vision" of how things are balanced. As right now, for most every arguement, there's an opposing equal arguement.</span><div></div>

Sorano

11-19-2005, 03:52 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Morie wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KingOfF00LS wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <SPAN></SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>This is seemingly pretty damning evidence at first glance.<BR><BR>The healing difference between Templar and Fury is so slight as to be unnoticable in anything other than a "laboratory" type environment. And yet the huge discrepancy in DPS between the two classes remains. At the same time look at Warden heals obliterating the competition, but at the same time having more DPS and utility in my experience than a Templar does by far. These would seem to be pretty important numbers for higher ups to be looking at and indicative of what a lot of us have been saying, no?<BR><BR></SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></SPAN>Looking at the numbers doesn't tell you the whole story. In reality, true direct heals are far more powerful and efficient than a 40% heal with a HoT component. Although we're far better off than we were before the recent changes, wardens still can't deal with spike damage the way that the other priests can (which is really the whole point of using a direct heal). The larger heal amount is designed to compensate for the lack of instant delivery, although it really doesn't. <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Yes the numbers are an imaginery scenario where every heal lands for it's full amount and that would NEVER occur in the game itself. A lot of warden healing is wasted ticks, just by the nature of how heal over times work. We have to wait 10 seconds for the full healing on our arch heal line, and as you can imagine there are very very few scenarios in game where that would occur. At least you know that when you cast you big DH when the tank is in the yellow, it going to heal for like 1.5K as soon as it lands. When a warden casts ours we heal 700, and then 80 every second for 10 seconds. A lot of those ticks end up wasted, especially in a raid situation where you are most likely to have encounters lasting over a minute, so wardens end up healing a lot less. The numbers are not anywhere near a true reflection of what each class can heal over a minute, and are just interesting fluff factor. </DIV>

bigmak20

11-21-2005, 09:37 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR> <SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR>Something interesting we did last night on the warden board, actually 2-3 of us did the math all at once, it was kinda funny, everyone was just bored it seems and someone requested a mathematical comparison, so we all went and got a calculator it seemed LOL.<BR><BR>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=16&message.id=10861&page=3 <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Just have to answer this, following is quoted from the link<BR></SPAN> <HR> <SPAN></SPAN>Dalcharis wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Please correct my math if you find anything wrong.<BR>Salve 583.5 * 10 = 5835 hp in 60s<BR>Elixir = 6216 hp in 60s.<BR><BR>Streams... 899* 10 = 8990 in 60s<BR>Bliss.... 1660.5* 5 = 8300 + 1 more cast with just one more tick on it (2.5s were left in the minute... I don't know if the first tick is immediate or waits the 1s.) so add 93.5 + 725... 8300 + 93.5 + 725 = 9118.5hp in 60s<BR><BR><BR>So... Grand total using just the main line direct heals at 60...<BR><BR><B>Fury = 12051 hp in 1 minute<BR>Warden = 18108.5 hp in 1 minute.</B><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Here is the deal for mighty templars:<BR><BR>Greater Amelioration lvl 57, Adept III<BR>Heals for 757-926 (average 841), 2s cast, 6s recast = 6300 hitpoints per minute<BR><BR>Greater restoration lvl 60, Adept III<BR>Heals for 1399-1709 (average 1113), 3s cast, 11,5s recast = 6400 hp per minute<BR><BR>This equals <B>12700 hp per minute for templar direct heals</B><BR><BR>So templar direct heals are actually equal to fury heals. Or were if there weren't any other direct heals for furies.<BR><BR>So next time you claim templars heal better, do the math first to the end. Furies are equal from the start and far better after lvl 52. Wardens are better to begin with. But maybe this is why you didn't include templars to your calculations.<BR> <P>Message Edited by Timaarit on <SPAN class=date_text>11-18-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>06:59 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Or better yet tim, include your ancient spell scrolls in the calculation instead of skewing it to only include a fraction of your abilities. YOU do the math.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

bigmak20

11-21-2005, 09:43 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR> <SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR>Something interesting we did last night on the warden board, actually 2-3 of us did the math all at once, it was kinda funny, everyone was just bored it seems and someone requested a mathematical comparison, so we all went and got a calculator it seemed LOL.<BR><BR>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=16&message.id=10861&page=3 <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Just have to answer this, following is quoted from the link<BR></SPAN> <HR> <SPAN></SPAN>Dalcharis wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Please correct my math if you find anything wrong.<BR>Salve 583.5 * 10 = 5835 hp in 60s<BR>Elixir = 6216 hp in 60s.<BR><BR>Streams... 899* 10 = 8990 in 60s<BR>Bliss.... 1660.5* 5 = 8300 + 1 more cast with just one more tick on it (2.5s were left in the minute... I don't know if the first tick is immediate or waits the 1s.) so add 93.5 + 725... 8300 + 93.5 + 725 = 9118.5hp in 60s<BR><BR><BR>So... Grand total using just the main line direct heals at 60...<BR><BR><B>Fury = 12051 hp in 1 minute<BR>Warden = 18108.5 hp in 1 minute.</B><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Here is the deal for mighty templars:<BR><BR>Greater Amelioration lvl 57, Adept III<BR>Heals for 757-926 (average 841), 2s cast, 6s recast = 6300 hitpoints per minute<BR><BR>Greater restoration lvl 60, Adept III<BR>Heals for 1399-1709 (average 1113), 3s cast, 11,5s recast = 6400 hp per minute<BR><BR>This equals <B>12700 hp per minute for templar direct heals</B><BR><BR>So templar direct heals are actually equal to fury heals. Or were if there weren't any other direct heals for furies.<BR><BR>So next time you claim templars heal better, do the math first to the end. Furies are equal from the start and far better after lvl 52. Wardens are better to begin with. But maybe this is why you didn't include templars to your calculations.<BR> <P>Message Edited by Timaarit on <SPAN class=date_text>11-18-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:59 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> This is why I asked later in this thread to ignore the previous thread... I should have edited it out until I could have done this. And no I hadn't planned on doing templar... Spagma posted templars but I don't think we really delved into it as it was mainly a warden and I read somewhere warden = templar and completley forgot about the odds and ends of recast times on yours being different, honest mistake on my part actually, then I thought about it later, and bring you this!!<BR><BR>I was at work and plotted this stuff into an excel spreadsheet out of sheer boredom. Templars seem caught be this issue: Recast time... not so much the time itself, but when things pop back up for reuse.<BR><BR>Theoretically, if you could chaincast without regard to what's up... a T5 Templar would heal 8561 at 60s and 10261 at 61s.<BR>Theoretically, if furies could do the same, a T5 fury would heal for 8532 at 60s.<BR>Theoretically, if wardens could do the same, a T5 warden would heal for 11605 at 60s.<BR> (and I tell you plotting out warden heals in a spreadsheet sucks).<BR>When you line everything up for the classes, so that they're not casting a heal at the same time as another heal... casting small DH and then large DH... it lines up like this:<BR><BR>Templar: 9148 at 60s and at 61s.<BR>Fury: 8522 at 60s and 8929 at 61s<BR>Warden: 11912.5 at 60s, and 12335 at 61s.<BR><BR>So... The original thread was partly correct--with furies in relation to warden, furies are about 33% behind warden, but are about 7% behind Templar once you start digging farther in.<BR><BR>----------<BR><BR>Course, then this makes us all have to wonder about the dispairity too between say temp and warden, as it's around 20% for temps and 33% for furies.. I'm thinking it's not really intentional really. shave off 1s of each templar heal and it'd probably help with the screwball cast time pop-- (if I remember right, there was twice where templars are casting one while another popped like half a second or one second into the cast... for druids that's not a big deal as we cast fast, for templars it slows you down.)<BR><BR>-----------<BR><BR>I'm sure people think I'm out to thwart the Templar or something but that's honestly not the case. I realized the error and got to thinking it wouln't be simple as just dividing cast times/recast times etc due to the longer casts, so felt to do it right.<BR><BR>Chances are best solution-- unlink BOVirtuous for everyone. Furies aren't likely to use it post 52, at least not much. And most of the other classes would definately find a use for it throughout their entire career...<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>/cough</P> <P>/cough</P> <P>Let me reiterate.</P> <P>Those core heals you'all are parsing showing things relatively balanced. I agree. How many times do I have to say it?</P> <P>LOOK AT THE ANCIENT SPELLS.</P> <P>Furies are short recast direct heals -- i.e. CORE HEALING ABILITIES -- on SEPERATE TIMERS.</P> <P>Templars get "heals" (a HUGE stretch of the term) from ancient spell are Reverence and Divine Arbitration. Those are no where near the type of healing power you get from direct heals on short recast and seperate timers. </P> <P>If you include BITF and HIBERNATION in those calculations you will see the huge disparity.</P> <P> </P>

Badfeeling

11-21-2005, 09:12 PM

<DIV> <DIV>Actually guys, ignore that thread above, I'm doing something different as I think it needs to be looked at, chances are furies may not actually be 33% like those theoretical numbers show, as I realized a few things... while chaincasting even in optimal timeframes, you end up with overlaping cast/recast... you can't cast something else while you're casting another spell already... SOOO lemmie finish plugging numbers into a pretty spreadsheet</DIV> <P></P> <DIV>Graace And Whyll<BR>Fury & Warlock<BR>The Bazaar<BR></DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Can I say I was shocked at the way the above contributor tried to dismiss someone elses previous comments just because it did not suit their cause.::smileymad:</DIV> <DIV>What right does anyone have to say "ignore the thread above". Everybody has a right to thier opinions.</DIV> <DIV>I also question this particular contributors quality of life if they are spending ALL thier time working out the mathematics of each Healer. Maybe you should get out more Mate, it is ONLY a game"</DIV>

jpbaeten

11-22-2005, 02:22 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Badfeeling wrote:<BR> <DIV> <DIV>Actually guys, ignore that thread above, I'm doing something different as I think it needs to be looked at, chances are furies may not actually be 33% like those theoretical numbers show, as I realized a few things... while chaincasting even in optimal timeframes, you end up with overlaping cast/recast... you can't cast something else while you're casting another spell already... SOOO lemmie finish plugging numbers into a pretty spreadsheet</DIV> <P></P> <DIV>Graace And Whyll<BR>Fury & Warlock<BR>The Bazaar<BR></DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Can I say I was shocked at the way the above contributor tried to dismiss someone elses previous comments just because it did not suit their cause.::smileymad:</DIV> <DIV>What right does anyone have to say "ignore the thread above". Everybody has a right to thier opinions.</DIV> <DIV>I also question this particular contributors quality of life if they are spending ALL thier time working out the mathematics of each Healer. Maybe you should get out more Mate, it is ONLY a game"</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Badfeeling, please read the last post on page one of this thread to better understand the 'ignore that thread above' statement.</P> <P>Also, can I say that I was shocked at the way you judged a person's quality of life. Everybody has a right to spend their time how they please if it does not break any law or moral code :smileywink:<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by jpbaeten on <span class=date_text>11-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:42 PM</span>

Dalchar

11-22-2005, 02:25 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Badfeeling wrote:<div></div> <div> <div>Actually guys, ignore that thread above, I'm doing something different as I think it needs to be looked at, chances are furies may not actually be 33% like those theoretical numbers show, as I realized a few things... while chaincasting even in optimal timeframes, you end up with overlaping cast/recast... you can't cast something else while you're casting another spell already... SOOO lemmie finish plugging numbers into a pretty spreadsheet</div> <p></p> <div>Graace And WhyllFury & WarlockThe Bazaar</div></div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>"Can I say I was shocked at the way the above contributor tried to dismiss someone elses previous comments just because it did not suit their cause.::smileymad:</div> <div>What right does anyone have to say "ignore the thread above". Everybody has a right to thier opinions.</div> <div>I also question this particular contributors quality of life if they are spending ALL thier time working out the mathematics of each Healer. Maybe you should get out more Mate, it is ONLY a game"</div><hr></blockquote>My bad, when I said "that post above" I meant, **MY** post above, not the person above me... I'll go edit that... I should have deleted my old one I guess.</span><div></div>

Dalchar

11-22-2005, 02:55 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>bigmak2010 wrote: <p>/cough</p> <p>Let me reiterate.</p> <p>Those core heals you'all are parsing showing things relatively balanced. I agree. How many times do I have to say it?</p> <p>LOOK AT THE ANCIENT SPELLS.</p> <p>Furies are short recast direct heals -- i.e. CORE HEALING ABILITIES -- on SEPERATE TIMERS.</p> <p>Templars get "heals" (a HUGE stretch of the term) from ancient spell are Reverence and Divine Arbitration. Those are no where near the type of healing power you get from direct heals on short recast and seperate timers. </p> <p>If you include BITF and HIBERNATION in those calculations you will see the huge disparity.</p> <hr></blockquote> Well, we were actually going for a baseline comparison, as you're a *insert preist type* here before you hit the ancient spells. But these just show direct heal capacity without taking into account anything else. As we notice before wardens got bumped up to their current state, we know "more now" is almost always better than "some now and some later" when it comes to healing. We all watched as they all floundered for weeks with complete inability to do much other than watch tanks slowly die. With furies, it's a similar story once you begin to do harder content ie named, mobs several levels above tank's level, etc. Things like deeper silent city and poet's palace. The comparison on direct heals only shows that Templars are about 7% ahead of furies in direct heals, while wardens are 33% ahead. But that's just an HP/second replenishment. It doesn't show things like slows, pacifies, stuns, STR debuffs, etc. or anything else that helps reduce incoming dps that various priests have at their disposal--something that furies do not have. BITF while on a separate timer, about all it truely does, is bump fury hp/s up to between templar and warden capacity hp/s. Hibernation--while situationally useful, you have to almost be psychic to use... as it is a heal that takes 11s to actually go off... usually by then it isn't even needed, about all I use it for, is pre-porcupine and when I'm feeling lazy and wanna see trees. Once in a blue moon, it'll actually trigger when I want it to in an actually useful situation. And for pre-porcupine it's almost pointless, as enough dmg hasn't been delt for it to be of use... but, I guess there's always a "just in case" thing. About all I can comment on is how furies do actually work and what it took to make it actually seem complete and competant. Many furies just like myself will also honestly tell you, without BITF we'd be in a boat much like wardens when taking on any challenging content post 50, as there's no buffs etc furies have that actually decrease incoming dps in any way. The fight might end 5-10s faster, but, it doesn't prevent the tank from getting completely walloped the other 25-30s. Taking a good geared (some fabled, rest legendary) tank at L52, I was 51, rest of group was rather similar, to do the towers in Maj'Dul, Tank died rather frequently, and I have all master/adept3s and knew what I was doing, even played in beta so knew some of what to expect. So, the net result was that smaller faster heals while sounding great weren't up to snuff. The same can be said for wardens who just slowly watched their tanks die pre-bump. I fully support templars getting whatever is deemed necessary by the powers that be. My general understanding was that warden heals were = to templar, so don't see why not giving templars same total cast/recast as warden with the same-ish (slightly less prolly so warden maintains "best efficiency") total hp. But then I'm not a templar to know their full capacity. I'm just trying to supply information from the fury standpoint to try and create less confusion and spread more understanding of how the class works. I will agree though that DA from what I see/understand needs some looking at. In EQ1 it was fabulous, great mage-saver, plus it was just a 3 (or was it 6?) minute timer. </span><div></div>

kenji

11-22-2005, 09:02 AM

<DIV>technically...ok...technically, Templar has 4 Heals, Reverence and DA....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Reverence, does this heal? it just transfer target's Power used to HP, it wont heal 1 dmg if your target is stunned or OOP. sure it heals spell-caster good... but we all know how fast caster die...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>DA, does this heal? it just transfer Group HP and share them, by LOSING 20% hp each, 20% hp of full grp, lets say ~5000 each , that is 6000 HP LOST. is this useful for whole group...yes if u want them die faster.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sanc is the funny group buff, it does immune to all stun/root/stifle whatsoever, but it's just 20 sec duration! how many times a boss will AoE stifle in 20 sec? or will the boss tell u before AoE stifle? doubt it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>look at the DA's recast time, if BITF / Hib is 15 mins recast, find me a fury that willing to leave it on most useful hotbar.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>lets imagine if Hib is transfer the power used in 10 sec and heal 140% of used... imagine how much it heal on tank, few hundred?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>playing a Templar at high end game is no longer fun, their Only utility is buff up MT's HP, and slowly heal single target....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>dont look at Mystic's Shadow pet + Group Heal, dont look at Druid's Group Regen, then Templar is balanced with Group healing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>what we got from nerfs is something that wont work on Epics. for high end raiders, they are useless at ALL.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>for normal grouping, Fury or even Mystic ahead from us. (DPS / Burst + Group Burst)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templar is only good at boss fighting with pure single target melee. any AoE pass 2k dmg will just make Templar look [Removed for Content].</DIV>

bigmak20

11-22-2005, 10:02 PM

I'd really like Sony to addess this. They have clearly created a best healer in this game at 58+. That very same class also has the best DPS, and aguably the best utility. That is grossly overpowered **relative to other priests**.

kenji

11-23-2005, 03:10 PM

<DIV>to Dalcharis : lets look at BITF itself (Direct Heal, u cant it's utilities right? /grin)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>in your math you said Fury only direct heal 8522 in 60 sec, but just BITF, u can cast 7 times, worst issue is target always 50% higher, then it heal 4861.5, best issue is target always 50% lower, then it heal 9723... half good issue, it still heal 6945...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i dunno a Direct Heal that can heal 9k hp in a min is CORE or not, but for a Healer as my templar, it work UBER. maybe your fury is DPS class not healer, but thats just your thought. i am a healer, not utility class</DIV>

Timaarit

11-23-2005, 04:35 PM

Kendricke

11-23-2005, 09:18 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR> <DIV>to Dalcharis : lets look at BITF itself (Direct Heal, u cant it's utilities right? /grin)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>in your math you said Fury only direct heal 8522 in 60 sec, but just BITF, u can cast 7 times, worst issue is target always 50% higher, then it heal 4861.5, best issue is target always 50% lower, then it heal 9723... half good issue, it still heal 6945...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i dunno a Direct Heal that can heal 9k hp in a min is CORE or not, but for a Healer as my templar, it work UBER. maybe your fury is DPS class not healer, but thats just your thought. i am a healer, not utility class</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Lets add Reverence to this. Templar casts it and the target actually uses power. How much power can a tank burn in a minute? With 5000 power the tank gets the same result as with BITF. Now while this is not away from templars power pool, it shows that Reverence is a lot worse than BITF no matter how you look at it. In raid situations these two are close to equal if the target knows that Reverence is being cast on him, but that is about it.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I agree Reverence should be boosted. However, it's far from a worthless spell, and a macro is easy enough to make, specifically if you use the "/tt" command to send a targeted tell:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT face=Verdana><STRONG>/tt REVERENCE cast on you. Use power for the next 15 seconds to heal yourself.<BR>/usea Reverence</STRONG></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P> </P>

Dalchar

11-23-2005, 09:31 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>kenjiso wrote:<div>to Dalcharis : lets look at BITF itself (Direct Heal, u cant it's utilities right? /grin)</div> <div> </div> <div>in your math you said Fury only direct heal 8522 in 60 sec, but just BITF, u can cast 7 times, worst issue is target always 50% higher, then it heal 4861.5, best issue is target always 50% lower, then it heal 9723... half good issue, it still heal 6945...</div> <div> </div> <div>i dunno a Direct Heal that can heal 9k hp in a min is CORE or not, but for a Healer as my templar, it work UBER. maybe your fury is DPS class not healer, but thats just your thought. i am a healer, not utility class</div><hr></blockquote>You're looking at the heal without considering it's actual application and execution. While you can in theory cast it 6x, would you? No, it's far more effective when tank is 50% or less health. You're more likely to cast it 3-4x in the course of a minute. It's not something you'll cast every time it's up. It's very cost prohibitive otherwise to cast it when tank isn't above 50%. If you estimate casting it 4x and it lands twice within good range and twice within bad range, it bumps furies up to about 10% less healing than a warden when I ran the figures like a week or two ago... and like 15% above templar. The reason for using half the time in good or bad range is simple-- tanks vary, and some of them will hit heals as well as necros having some spells that provide health etc, Furies buff hp very little, and you can generally count on a regeneration ticking. In the half second before you hit BITF it could tick then by the time it lands, it could tick again. So in actual practice it does tend to only land in the right ranges about 50% of the time... but... if you're waiting until the tank is red... then... you're waiting and not chain casting it in the first place, so yes, 3-4x in a 1 minute fight is more appropriate estimation. I'm personally guessing the reason furies have BITF is for two reasons: the strongest upfront fastest healing, and the complete lack of defensive utility (other than 1 core priest concentration buff variations we all get), rather than give something defensive to prevent incoming damage, the ability to replace damage was provided.</span><div></div>

Bjerde

11-23-2005, 10:08 PM

<span> I'm personally guessing the reason furies have BITF is for two reasons: the strongest upfront fastest healing, and the complete lack of defensive utility (other than 1 core priest concentration buff variations we all get), rather than give something defensive to prevent incoming damage, the ability to replace damage was provided. ------------------------------------------------------- Templars do not have any better means to decrease incoming damage. One 7 second stun that can be used once per fight, and a Pacify that may or may not get broken when hit (and of course only works in group mobs) Neither can be used on Epics. The Pacify is almost never used, and the Stun is useful but I don't usually have a lot of time to use it. Furies have a Wisdom/Agility debuff that will help melee and casters do more damage to mob, and you have a short Str/Sta buff that will help the tank out when a mob dies (for grp mob situations). Cast on first mob, when he dies tank is buffed for rest of fight. These spells do different things, but they are both contributing to either get the mob dead faster, or to protect the party more. But, we both have the Tools.....and I think the Fury Wiz/Agi debuff is the best of the four....with the Stun being second. </span><div></div>

Kendricke

11-23-2005, 10:11 PM

<P>Benefaction and Faith lines are direct wards. In addition, several of our buffs include methods by which we can increase health or armor. This is not counting several utility and investment heals we have the require little to no additional assistance. In longer fights. Templars can put out incredible amounts of healing.</P> <P> </P>

stargazer5678

11-23-2005, 10:34 PM

<P>Guys, stop comparing apples and oranges.</P> <P>It's a natural desire to compare priests classes, however there is no simple way to do it because the classes are DIFFERENT.</P> <P>A few things I want to illustrate:</P> <P>1. Warden has the most wisdom and can heal the most efficiently and as some posts demonstrated it can heal for more during 60s. So what? Have you tried playing a warden? Do you know that wardens have to chain cast all the time? Do you know they get no direct heals and struggle to heal when faced with spike damage? My wife has a Mystic and a Warden. She says it's much harder to keep the group alive as a Warden. It's doable, but in some cases Mystic is much better. Does it mean that Mystic is a better healer class? NO. It means that they are DIFFERENT. In a long fight Warden is probably better</P> <P>2. Furies have BITF and Hybernation. So??? Have you tried playing a Fury and using those spells? Do you realize that the first one (as has already been said MANY TIMES) is only great if your tanks is below 50% and that if you cast it all the time you will be oop in no time???? What good is a healer without any power left??? Hybernation is a VERY situational spell. In most cases I cast group HoT or direct group heal because it heals NOW when I NEED it. Who knows what will happen in 10 secs from now? In most cases when I use it I just loose power which again is BAD.</P> <P>Realize that every healer class is different for a reason. So, that we are all usefull in groups AND RAIDS. This has been accomplished by SoE. Classes are much more balanced than before. Are they 100% balanced? No, because what is balanced? It's SITUATIONAL.</P> <P>Do you think you like how Furies and Wardens heal, solo, duo ? Get ONE. Spent 1 year on your templar? Can STILL use him/her and get another class developing. This way at least you get to play that class and not just look at the spells and complain ...</P>

LostAgain

11-23-2005, 10:35 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Benefaction and Faith lines are direct wards. In addition, several of our buffs include methods by which we can increase health or armor. This is not counting several utility and investment heals we have the require little to no additional assistance. In longer fights. Templars can put out incredible amounts of healing.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote></span> I believe you are referring to the Benediction line being a direct ward. Minor nitpick I know but it threw me for a loop at first. <div></div>

Dalchar

11-23-2005, 10:59 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Bjerde wrote:<span> I'm personally guessing the reason furies have BITF is for two reasons: the strongest upfront fastest healing, and the complete lack of defensive utility (other than 1 core priest concentration buff variations we all get), rather than give something defensive to prevent incoming damage, the ability to replace damage was provided. ------------------------------------------------------- Templars do not have any better means to decrease incoming damage. One 7 second stun that can be used once per fight, and a Pacify that may or may not get broken when hit (and of course only works in group mobs) Neither can be used on Epics. The Pacify is almost never used, and the Stun is useful but I don't usually have a lot of time to use it. Furies have a Wisdom/Agility debuff that will help melee and casters do more damage to mob, and you have a short Str/Sta buff that will help the tank out when a mob dies (for grp mob situations). Cast on first mob, when he dies tank is buffed for rest of fight. These spells do different things, but they are both contributing to either get the mob dead faster, or to protect the party more. But, we both have the Tools.....and I think the Fury Wiz/Agi debuff is the best of the four....with the Stun being second. </span><div></div><hr></blockquote></span>The STR/AGI single target buff is a dps buff used on scouts as it increases dps and haste by 45%, putting it on a tank would waste about 90% of the point in casting it, it always goes on scouts or the tank doing dps, not the tank himself. Otherwise there's a group INT/WIS buff. The debuff while helps deal damage (and not by much never seen a nuke actually land for more than what it says due to WIS decrease athough things may have landed more often... that's hard to actually tell), doesn't prevent your tank from getting walloped on even though the fight may last 5 or 10 seconds less out of the say 40 it normally would have taken. The Heal upon death which has STR/AGI lasts 18s, and for the past 3 patches has been broken. I've never noticed more than a 90 hp increase, the heal itself could have covered that, but again it didn't decrease the damage incoming in the first place and very quickly. Never once have I said the pacifies or stuns (both of these IMHO should have fast 1s cast-times and low resist) or the benediction line shouldn't be improved to make them all more viable though if needed, just that they're there as a means of decreasing incoming dps in one form or another. Main reason I post really is to help provide constructive feedback. I don't propose to tell templars what they do or do not need. But I can attempt to shed light on the way furies do and do not work both in group and raid situations and point out why some things for my class seem necessary. When I discover I'm wrong in something, I'm fully willing to admit to it and attempt to correct, as per earlier within this thread. <div></div>

bigmak20

11-23-2005, 11:20 PM

Trying to "defend" having 2 additional core healing spells over other priests by saying their situational -- or use power -- or get you aggro -- etc.... is silly. The point is... you HAVE them for when you NEED them. We don't. We just stand there watching the tank die while we beg for a localized time warp to get our heal timers back up. This problem is greatly magnified by our LONG cast times. So not only do we have fewer direct heals to use it takes us longer to cast the few we have. That's not balanced.

stargazer5678

11-24-2005, 12:10 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR>Trying to "defend" having 2 additional core healing spells over other priests by saying their situational -- or use power -- or get you aggro -- etc.... is silly.<BR><BR>The point is... you HAVE them for when you NEED them.<BR><BR>We don't. We just stand there watching the tank die while we beg for a localized time warp to get our heal timers back up. This problem is greatly magnified by our LONG cast times. So not only do we have fewer direct heals to use it takes us longer to cast the few we have.<BR><BR>That's not balanced.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I my previous post I tried to show that those 2 spells should be used with caution. I was not trying to defend them. My thoughts were about priests classes overall. My point was that you shouldn't people shouldn't compare apples and oranges.</DIV> <DIV>But since the only part you saw and cared about about is those 2 spells let me talk more about it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok, you are saying the tank is dying and you can't do anything. Why is that? My understanding is templars have big direct heals, is it not so? You just casted it, ok, you have more than 1 right? Furies BITF is similar to one of your big heals but has limitations (can't be cast on self and effective only if tank is below 50%). Without BITF furies would be far behing in healing, I understand that's where you want furies to be, but luckily that's not the case.</DIV> <DIV>Hybernation is useless if the tank is dying! It's 10s until it fires. You mean none of your DD heals in on 10s recast that you can use instead??</DIV> <DIV>Furthermore, if you don't agree or don't understand something don't rush to label it silly, adds no value to your post.</DIV>

Kendricke

11-24-2005, 12:18 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LostAgain wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>Benefaction and Faith lines are direct wards. In addition, several of our buffs include methods by which we can increase health or armor. This is not counting several utility and investment heals we have the require little to no additional assistance. In longer fights. Templars can put out incredible amounts of healing.</P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></SPAN><BR>I believe you are referring to the Benediction line being a direct ward.<BR><BR>Minor nitpick I know but it threw me for a loop at first.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>My apologies. Benediction has a chance to block attacks entirely. It is not a direct ward. Thank you for pointing out the error.</P> <P> </P>

LostAgain

11-24-2005, 12:24 AM

<div></div>Actually, I was more referring to the fact that you said Benefaction instead of Benediction. Still a minor nitpick, just the first time I read it I thought I had missed a component of the Focused Benefaction spell. <div></div><p>Message Edited by LostAgain on <span class=date_text>11-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:29 AM</span>

Kendricke

11-24-2005, 12:28 AM

Oops again! :smileysurprised:

Dalchar

11-24-2005, 12:28 AM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>bigmak2010 wrote:Trying to "defend" having 2 additional core healing spells over other priests by saying their situational -- or use power -- or get you aggro -- etc.... is silly. The point is... you HAVE them for when you NEED them. We don't. We just stand there watching the tank die while we beg for a localized time warp to get our heal timers back up. This problem is greatly magnified by our LONG cast times. So not only do we have fewer direct heals to use it takes us longer to cast the few we have. That's not balanced. <hr></blockquote>It's not having them "when" we need them, it's more having them because we need them. Play my class, and tell me what I do and don't need when you reach 60. Trust me when you heal a group as a fury through all of poet's palace alone (and kill everything, named included), you'll understand. When your tank is just 2 levels below the mobs (and you hit your two tiny master 1 heals), tank has good gear, and still dies because you didn't have BITF at 50&51 in MD towers, you'll understand. BITF is actually pretty necessary to make them a viable healer in harder content. Crying foul just because things are on a different timer without taking how the class works and what it does and doesn't have and how things work in realtime, is taking things in isolation and throwing reason out the window. That doesn't mean Templar does or doesn't need something similar, but doesn't give a reason to say what does or doesn't make the class function and balanced in and of its own right. </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class=date_text>11-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:33 AM</span>

bigmak20

11-24-2005, 01:35 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>bigmak2010 wrote:Trying to "defend" having 2 additional core healing spells over other priests by saying their situational -- or use power -- or get you aggro -- etc.... is silly. The point is... you HAVE them for when you NEED them. We don't. We just stand there watching the tank die while we beg for a localized time warp to get our heal timers back up. This problem is greatly magnified by our LONG cast times. So not only do we have fewer direct heals to use it takes us longer to cast the few we have. That's not balanced. <hr></blockquote>It's not having them "when" we need them, it's more having them because we need them. Play my class, and tell me what I do and don't need when you reach 60. Trust me when you heal a group as a fury through all of poet's palace alone (and kill everything, named included), you'll understand. When your tank is just 2 levels below the mobs (and you hit your two tiny master 1 heals), tank has good gear, and still dies because you didn't have BITF at 50&51 in MD towers, you'll understand. BITF is actually pretty necessary to make them a viable healer in harder content. Crying foul just because things are on a different timer without taking how the class works and what it does and doesn't have and how things work in realtime, is taking things in isolation and throwing reason out the window. That doesn't mean Templar does or doesn't need something similar, but doesn't give a reason to say what does or doesn't make the class function and balanced in and of its own right. </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class="date_text">11-23-2005</span> <span class="time_text">11:33 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>hmm... we need them too. /shrug You have them; we don't. You are a better healer then other priests because of it. All these Furies in here trying to defend why they somehow need more direct heals on seperate timers then other priests... it's amazing. amazing. You are defending why you need those heals by drawing analogies against a core healing toolset equal to what Templars have.. period... at 60. But you get those two extra heals to help with those situations... good for you. Furies are the best healers. Gratz. Doesn't mean you aren't balanced in your own right. You are just the best healers. And have the best DPS. And the best utility. Triple Gratz. </span><div></div>

Kendricke

11-24-2005, 02:16 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>You are just the best healers. And have the best DPS. And the best utility. Triple Gratz.</SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What!? </P> <P>So a monster rushes three identical parties in three different, yet identical instances. The ONLY difference in each party is the healer. In one group, there's a Templar...in another a Mystic...and in the last group, a Fury.</P> <P>The first monster slams into the fighter in each group for five hits at 200 damage a pop in the first round of combat. Each healer had managed to fire off one single group specialty heal 4 seconds prior to the pull and that's in effect right now.</P> <P>In the first group, the Templar's group reactive fired off five times and healed the fighter for ~1000 health when only 1000 damage was taken. In the second group, the Mystic's group ward blocked 1500 points of damage when only 1000 damage was taken. In the third group, the Fury's Regeneration has already healed about ~300 health out of 1000...but it's already fired 3 times out of the 5 total it's going to. </P> <P>Group 1 has a fighter with no damage and a reactive still up with 4 more triggers left at around ~200 healing per trigger. Group 2 has a fighter with no damage and a ~500 point ward still up. Group 3's fighter is down 700 health, but has a regneration that will heal most of that over the next couple rounds of combat...while the monster is still attacking for around 1000 damage per round.</P> <P>The Templar's already casting his single target reactive. The Mystic's already casting her single target ward. The Furie's switching to a direct heal because the 5000 health fighter is down about 14-15% already. He's not going to cast Back into the Fray or Hibernation in this situation because that's a waste of health and casting the single target regeneration isn't going to be fast enough to bring the fighter's health back up fast enough. </P> <P>...</P> <P>Care to continue?</P> <P><BR> </P> <DIV><FONT size=1><EM>NOTE: Hypothetical situation. I can use exact numbers and exact spell names (not to mention casting times and power costs) if someone wants to complain though.</EM> </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>11-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:18 PM</span>

Timaarit

11-24-2005, 02:28 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><p>I agree Reverence should be boosted. However, it's far from a worthless spell, and a macro is easy enough to make, specifically if you use the "/tt" command to send a targeted tell:</p><><><div></div><hr></blockquote>Reverence needs a huge boost. At 300% as A3 I would consider putting it back to my hotbar.</span><div></div>

Timaarit

11-24-2005, 02:31 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <p>What!? </p> <p>So a monster rushes three identical parties in three different, yet identical instances. The ONLY difference in each party is the healer. In one group, there's a Templar...in another a Mystic...and in the last group, a Fury.</p><hr></blockquote>Put in an avoidance tank... So what was your point? True, this is a<i> fantasy</i> game. Doesn't mean it has to be brought to the boards though.</span><div></div>

Timaarit

11-24-2005, 02:35 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:<span> I'm personally guessing the reason furies have BITF is for two reasons: the strongest upfront fastest healing, and the complete lack of defensive utility (other than 1 core priest concentration buff variations we all get), rather than give something defensive to prevent incoming damage, the ability to replace damage was provided.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>So where is templar DPS version of BITF? Templars have no offensive utility so where is it? Or do you mean there is a double standard here? One for templars (= defensive class, no attack capability needed) and one for furies (= offensive class, needs best healing because they have no defensive utility).</span><div></div>

Timaarit

11-24-2005, 02:42 AM

<span><blockquote>stargazer5678 wrote: <div>I my previous post I tried to show that those 2 spells should be used with caution. I was not trying to defend them. My thoughts were about priests classes overall. My point was that you shouldn't people shouldn't compare apples and oranges.</div> <div>But since the only part you saw and cared about about is those 2 spells let me talk more about it.</div> <div> </div> <div>Ok, you are saying the tank is dying and you can't do anything. Why is that? My understanding is templars have big direct heals, is it not so? You just casted it, ok, you have more than 1 right? Furies BITF is similar to one of your big heals but has limitations (can't be cast on self and effective only if tank is below 50%). Without BITF furies would be far behing in healing, I understand that's where you want furies to be, but luckily that's not the case.</div> <div>Hybernation is useless if the tank is dying! It's 10s until it fires. You mean none of your DD heals in on 10s recast that you can use instead??</div> <div>Furthermore, if you don't agree or don't understand something don't rush to label it silly, adds no value to your post.</div><hr></blockquote>If tank is over 50% health he is not dying is he? No, so the advantage of having 2 extra heals with separate timers is obvious. In addition, the 2 base heals heal <b>equal </b>(there is 5% difference in templars advantage) amount of hitpoints per second. But in addition to this, furies get 2 more direct heals which give furies 60% more direct healing power.</span><div></div>

Kendricke

11-24-2005, 02:56 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>Put in an avoidance tank...<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Fine, make it an avoidance tank. The example's still solid no matter what fighter you use. The numbers scale slightly differently, but the effect is the same. Regenerations aren't as effective with spike damage as other types of specialty heals. This doesn't get better with avoidance tanks - it gets worse actually. Spikes are MUCH more dangerous with a leather tank. With a mitigation tank, it's a steadier stream of damage. With an avoidance tank, you have to be on top of the spikes...which are going to be more extreme. You might have several rounds of little to no damage, then a bad few rounds on the RNG and you're looking at triple the damage a mitigation tank might have to deal with.</P> <P>It's situations like those that regenerations simply can't compete with reactives or wards. That's why Furies require faster, bigger situational heals. Templar reactives already handle spikes better. Our reactives do exactly that - they react.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

Cowdenic

11-24-2005, 03:19 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>Put in an avoidance tank...<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Fine, make it an avoidance tank. The example's still solid no matter what fighter you use. The numbers scale slightly differently, but the effect is the same. Regenerations aren't as effective with spike damage as other types of specialty heals. This doesn't get better with avoidance tanks - it gets worse actually. Spikes are MUCH more dangerous with a leather tank. With a mitigation tank, it's a steadier stream of damage. With an avoidance tank, you have to be on top of the spikes...which are going to be more extreme. You might have several rounds of little to no damage, then a bad few rounds on the RNG and you're looking at triple the damage a mitigation tank might have to deal with.</P> <P>It's situations like those that regenerations simply can't compete with reactives or wards. That's why Furies require faster, bigger situational heals. Templar reactives already handle spikes better. Our reactives do exactly that - they react.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Fallacy.

Kendricke

11-24-2005, 03:27 AM

<P>It's completely on topic, it's based in factual considerations, and it's relevant. What part of the post did you feel was fallacy? Which fallacy would that be? </P> <P> </P>

stargazer5678

11-24-2005, 04:18 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote>stargazer5678 wrote: <div>I my previous post I tried to show that those 2 spells should be used with caution. I was not trying to defend them. My thoughts were about priests classes overall. My point was that you shouldn't people shouldn't compare apples and oranges.</div> <div>But since the only part you saw and cared about about is those 2 spells let me talk more about it.</div> <div> </div> <div>Ok, you are saying the tank is dying and you can't do anything. Why is that? My understanding is templars have big direct heals, is it not so? You just casted it, ok, you have more than 1 right? Furies BITF is similar to one of your big heals but has limitations (can't be cast on self and effective only if tank is below 50%). Without BITF furies would be far behing in healing, I understand that's where you want furies to be, but luckily that's not the case.</div> <div>Hybernation is useless if the tank is dying! It's 10s until it fires. You mean none of your DD heals in on 10s recast that you can use instead??</div> <div>Furthermore, if you don't agree or don't understand something don't rush to label it silly, adds no value to your post.</div><hr></blockquote>If tank is over 50% health he is not dying is he? No, so the advantage of having 2 extra heals with separate timers is obvious. In addition, the 2 base heals heal <b>equal </b>(there is 5% difference in templars advantage) amount of hitpoints per second. But in addition to this, furies get 2 more direct heals which give furies 60% more direct healing power.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Yes, they are on seprate timers which is what we, furies, need to keep the group alive. Some templars still don't get it. Realize that with fury healing the tank will be in the orage much more often than with a templar healing. You reactives and direct heals are much more powerful, furies need to have something to compensate and this is BITF. One more time, stop putting Hybernation in one line with BITF and other heals, it's rarely useful and most definitely you don't cast it all the time. Is it a heal on its own timer? Yes. Is this the spell that will save the tank? In 99 out of 100 cases it won't. It mostly makes sense to use right before Porcupine, but I am hesitant to use Porcupine if I am the only healer in the group because it stuns me for 30 seconds.. And also 60% more direct healing power?? Wow, just having 2 more spells separate timers don't translate into 60% more direct healing power, see my comments above.</span><div></div>

zorbdan

11-24-2005, 04:53 AM

<DIV>The part of your statement that was false was the part about regens not being good with spike damage and here is why ...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The mob is hitting for minimal amounts lets say 100's before and after this series of hits - 400's and 500's and a max spike hit of 800 come in at once.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>mob hits for 400 then 500 then 400 then 800 reactive heals 300x4 =1200 healed of that 2100 damage 900 damage needs to be healed by other means direct or otherwise as a result of the spike.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>mob hits for 400 then 500 then 400 then 800 regen heals 300 of that damage then over the next 5 ticks it heals for 1500 more so of the 2100 damage 1800 of it was healed leaving only 300 damage that needs to be healed by other means direct or otherwise as a result of the spike.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Conclusion templar needs a 900hp fast cast heal other healer needs a 300hp fast cast heal to keep up. Templar is short 600hps worth of healing .</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There are things I am not taking into account here such as when the reactive/regen was cast during the battle so lets look at that .</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tank has 4000 hps </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>mob hits 9 times to start things off</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>100, 100, 100, 400, 500, 400, 800, 100, 100 = 2600 damage</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>reactive and regen being cast before pull</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>the reactive only works on the first 5 hits absorbing up to 300 per hit 0, 0, 0, 100, 200, 400, 800,100,100 leaving the tank down 1600 damage = tank now has 2400hps left</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>the regen ticks off 300 hps healing on the tank for 5 ticks, the first tick occurs after the 3rd hit second tick occurs after 6th hit, 3rd tick at 9th hit . After 3 hits the tank is down 0 hps 6 hits the tank is down 1000 hps, on 9 hits the tank will be down a total of 1700 but guess what the regen still has two more ticks left following the spike that will heal for another 600 leaving the tank down only 1100 hps = tank now has 3100 hps left</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At the end of 9 hits the mob is still alive tank is at - 2400/temp 2300/druid ... the templar is left scrambling for direct heals to get his tanks hps back up while the druid sits back and lets his 2 additional ticks of regen do the job.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> Templar throws down a 1000hps slow cast heal and tank is now comfortably at 3400, meanwhile druid throws down a fast cast heal of 800 plus nukes for 1000 damage in the time it took the templar to cast his 1 heal also his 2 ticks of regen left 600hps worth of regen ticks puts the tank at 3700 hps . </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again templar comes up 300hps short and about 1000 damage too ! </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now if this tank only had 1700 hps the tank would be dead with the druid and would have survived by 100hps with the templar. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by zorbdan on <span class=date_text>11-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:08 PM</span>

bigmak20

11-24-2005, 06:07 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>You are just the best healers. And have the best DPS. And the best utility. Triple Gratz.</SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What!? </P> <P>So a monster rushes three identical parties in three different, yet identical instances. The ONLY difference in each party is the healer. In one group, there's a Templar...in another a Mystic...and in the last group, a Fury.</P> <P>The first monster slams into the fighter in each group for five hits at 200 damage a pop in the first round of combat. Each healer had managed to fire off one single group specialty heal 4 seconds prior to the pull and that's in effect right now.</P> <P>In the first group, the Templar's group reactive fired off five times and healed the fighter for ~1000 health when only 1000 damage was taken. In the second group, the Mystic's group ward blocked 1500 points of damage when only 1000 damage was taken. In the third group, the Fury's Regeneration has already healed about ~300 health out of 1000...but it's already fired 3 times out of the 5 total it's going to. </P> <P>Group 1 has a fighter with no damage and a reactive still up with 4 more triggers left at around ~200 healing per trigger. Group 2 has a fighter with no damage and a ~500 point ward still up. Group 3's fighter is down 700 health, but has a regneration that will heal most of that over the next couple rounds of combat...while the monster is still attacking for around 1000 damage per round.</P> <P>The Templar's already casting his single target reactive. The Mystic's already casting her single target ward. The Furie's switching to a direct heal because the 5000 health fighter is down about 14-15% already. He's not going to cast Back into the Fray or Hibernation in this situation because that's a waste of health and casting the single target regeneration isn't going to be fast enough to bring the fighter's health back up fast enough. </P> <P>...</P> <P>Care to continue?</P> <P><BR> </P> <DIV><FONT size=1><EM>NOTE: Hypothetical situation. I can use exact numbers and exact spell names (not to mention casting times and power costs) if someone wants to complain though.</EM> </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Kendricke on <SPAN class=date_text>11-23-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:18 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Since we're making fantasy arguments here....</P> <P>So the Fury pops an AoE and a DD spell and the MoB drops dead before anyone takes any damage... lol</P> <P>Direct heals on seperate timers. IF you think that's balanced then you are saying the game is out of balance with the great balancing of LU13. Please show me how Furies are somehow inferior healers at L50 and L51.</P> <P>They suffer from the same difficulties we have. Heals are spent and are waiting for timers. The difference is they get 2 more direct heals to help with that -- on short timers. Not minutes. Not lotto. Not a utility trick. Two direct heals on relatively short recast timers.</P> <P>It's obvious to me Sony forgot to consider "Healing Balance" when they were handing out ancient spells. I think it's obvious to everyone; except those that want Furies to continue to be the uber healers at 58+</P> <P> </P>

Cowdenic

11-24-2005, 07:01 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zorbdan wrote:<BR> <DIV>The part of your statement that was false was the part about regens not being good with spike damage and here is why ...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The mob is hitting for minimal amounts lets say 100's before and after this series of hits - 400's and 500's and a max spike hit of 800 come in at once.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>mob hits for 400 then 500 then 400 then 800 reactive heals 300x4 =1200 healed of that 2100 damage 900 damage needs to be healed by other means direct or otherwise as a result of the spike.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>mob hits for 400 then 500 then 400 then 800 regen heals 300 of that damage then over the next 5 ticks it heals for 1500 more so of the 2100 damage 1800 of it was healed leaving only 300 damage that needs to be healed by other means direct or otherwise as a result of the spike.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Conclusion templar needs a 900hp fast cast heal other healer needs a 300hp fast cast heal to keep up. Templar is short 600hps worth of healing .</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There are things I am not taking into account here such as when the reactive/regen was cast during the battle so lets look at that .</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tank has 4000 hps </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>mob hits 9 times to start things off</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>100, 100, 100, 400, 500, 400, 800, 100, 100 = 2600 damage</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>reactive and regen being cast before pull</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>the reactive only works on the first 5 hits absorbing up to 300 per hit 0, 0, 0, 100, 200, 400, 800,100,100 leaving the tank down 1600 damage = tank now has 2400hps left</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>the regen ticks off 300 hps healing on the tank for 5 ticks, the first tick occurs after the 3rd hit second tick occurs after 6th hit, 3rd tick at 9th hit . After 3 hits the tank is down 0 hps 6 hits the tank is down 1000 hps, on 9 hits the tank will be down a total of 1700 but guess what the regen still has two more ticks left following the spike that will heal for another 600 leaving the tank down only 1100 hps = tank now has 3100 hps left</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At the end of 9 hits the mob is still alive tank is at - 2400/temp 2300/druid ... the templar is left scrambling for direct heals to get his tanks hps back up while the druid sits back and lets his 2 additional ticks of regen do the job.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> Templar throws down a 1000hps slow cast heal and tank is now comfortably at 3400, meanwhile druid throws down a fast cast heal of 800 plus nukes for 1000 damage in the time it took the templar to cast his 1 heal also his 2 ticks of regen left 600hps worth of regen ticks puts the tank at 3700 hps . </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again templar comes up 300hps short and about 1000 damage too ! </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now if this tank only had 1700 hps the tank would be dead with the druid and would have survived by 100hps with the templar. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by zorbdan on <SPAN class=date_text>11-23-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>04:08 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>exactly. Thank you for not making me spend my time explaining and probably flaming. That all being said. </P> <P>Druids do not need to cast prepull, they react to damage. Templars need to assume (with single target spells of course) that somebody is going to hold agro. Not always the case when you consider things like adds, agro wipe (yes more and more mobs erase agro at certain points in the battle.) and the such. Regens are also all faster cast than Reactives. The regen portions of direct heals stack. So you can literally in under 6 secs have 4 regens popping, and with them now being more front heavy than ever before it deals with damage easily. So what do Furies do at level 27 when they are waiting for their 4 recasts to pop up. Throwing out 600 and 700 pt nukes.</P> <P>I dont want a nerf to Furies. I love my new Fury. (She is the cutest tiniest little gnome fury.) I just want to see other disadvantaged healers brought up close to them. The good news is I can always farm with my Templar for my little Fury.</P>

Cowdenic

11-24-2005, 07:03 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>You are just the best healers. And have the best DPS. And the best utility. Triple Gratz.</SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What!? </P> <P>So a monster rushes three identical parties in three different, yet identical instances. The ONLY difference in each party is the healer. In one group, there's a Templar...in another a Mystic...and in the last group, a Fury.</P> <P>The first monster slams into the fighter in each group for five hits at 200 damage a pop in the first round of combat. Each healer had managed to fire off one single group specialty heal 4 seconds prior to the pull and that's in effect right now.</P> <P>In the first group, the Templar's group reactive fired off five times and healed the fighter for ~1000 health when only 1000 damage was taken. In the second group, the Mystic's group ward blocked 1500 points of damage when only 1000 damage was taken. In the third group, the Fury's Regeneration has already healed about ~300 health out of 1000...but it's already fired 3 times out of the 5 total it's going to. </P> <P>Group 1 has a fighter with no damage and a reactive still up with 4 more triggers left at around ~200 healing per trigger. Group 2 has a fighter with no damage and a ~500 point ward still up. Group 3's fighter is down 700 health, but has a regneration that will heal most of that over the next couple rounds of combat...while the monster is still attacking for around 1000 damage per round.</P> <P>The Templar's already casting his single target reactive. The Mystic's already casting her single target ward. The Furie's switching to a direct heal because the 5000 health fighter is down about 14-15% already. He's not going to cast Back into the Fray or Hibernation in this situation because that's a waste of health and casting the single target regeneration isn't going to be fast enough to bring the fighter's health back up fast enough. </P> <P>...</P> <P>Care to continue?</P> <P><BR> </P> <DIV><FONT size=1><EM>NOTE: Hypothetical situation. I can use exact numbers and exact spell names (not to mention casting times and power costs) if someone wants to complain though.</EM> </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Kendricke on <SPAN class=date_text>11-23-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:18 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The problem with this example is you assume a druid will cast regen prior to pull. My Fury always casts after 1st hit, and it is always only after first hit as my Furies cast time is 1 sec.

Kendricke

11-24-2005, 07:14 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Cowdenicus wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>You are just the best healers. And have the best DPS. And the best utility. Triple Gratz.</SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What!? </P> <P>So a monster rushes three identical parties in three different, yet identical instances. The ONLY difference in each party is the healer. In one group, there's a Templar...in another a Mystic...and in the last group, a Fury.</P> <P>The first monster slams into the fighter in each group for five hits at 200 damage a pop in the first round of combat. Each healer had managed to fire off one single group specialty heal 4 seconds prior to the pull and that's in effect right now.</P> <P>In the first group, the Templar's group reactive fired off five times and healed the fighter for ~1000 health when only 1000 damage was taken. In the second group, the Mystic's group ward blocked 1500 points of damage when only 1000 damage was taken. In the third group, the Fury's Regeneration has already healed about ~300 health out of 1000...but it's already fired 3 times out of the 5 total it's going to. </P> <P>Group 1 has a fighter with no damage and a reactive still up with 4 more triggers left at around ~200 healing per trigger. Group 2 has a fighter with no damage and a ~500 point ward still up. Group 3's fighter is down 700 health, but has a regneration that will heal most of that over the next couple rounds of combat...while the monster is still attacking for around 1000 damage per round.</P> <P>The Templar's already casting his single target reactive. The Mystic's already casting her single target ward. The Furie's switching to a direct heal because the 5000 health fighter is down about 14-15% already. He's not going to cast Back into the Fray or Hibernation in this situation because that's a waste of health and casting the single target regeneration isn't going to be fast enough to bring the fighter's health back up fast enough. </P> <P>...</P> <P>Care to continue?</P> <P><BR> </P> <DIV><FONT size=1><EM>NOTE: Hypothetical situation. I can use exact numbers and exact spell names (not to mention casting times and power costs) if someone wants to complain though.</EM> </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Kendricke on <SPAN class=date_text>11-23-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:18 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The problem with this example is you assume a druid will cast regen prior to pull. My Fury always casts after 1st hit, and it is always only after first hit as my Furies cast time is 1 sec. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Fair enough. So you cast after the pull. You're still casting consistent healing as opposed to dealing with damage as it's dealt. It's really just two different flavors of ice cream. A few months back, everyone preferred Templar because it was the flavor of the month down at 32 SOE's. Now, the new big thing is Fury. Whatever brand you want to buy...buy. It's a personal preference.</P> <P>I still prefer Templar flavor. You apparantly prefer the new big thing. Whatever floats your banana split boat is good for you, right? </P> <P>In short: If you're not happy with Templars, then do something constructive about that unhappiness. Either pick a new class; pick a new game; or find a way to constructively word your suggestions to the developers. </P> <P>I've finally tired of trying to convince folks that what I like is what I like. If you don't like what I like, then go grab a different flavor or hit a different store. Whatever you do, just do something other than sitting in the corner with a flavor you obviously hate dripping all over you griping to anyone within earshot how lousy the ice cream is and how horrible the store is for making it. Some of us are still pretty happy with the Templar flavor in front of us. </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

Cowdenic

11-24-2005, 07:25 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Cowdenicus wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>You are just the best healers. And have the best DPS. And the best utility. Triple Gratz.</SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What!? </P> <P>So a monster rushes three identical parties in three different, yet identical instances. The ONLY difference in each party is the healer. In one group, there's a Templar...in another a Mystic...and in the last group, a Fury.</P> <P>The first monster slams into the fighter in each group for five hits at 200 damage a pop in the first round of combat. Each healer had managed to fire off one single group specialty heal 4 seconds prior to the pull and that's in effect right now.</P> <P>In the first group, the Templar's group reactive fired off five times and healed the fighter for ~1000 health when only 1000 damage was taken. In the second group, the Mystic's group ward blocked 1500 points of damage when only 1000 damage was taken. In the third group, the Fury's Regeneration has already healed about ~300 health out of 1000...but it's already fired 3 times out of the 5 total it's going to. </P> <P>Group 1 has a fighter with no damage and a reactive still up with 4 more triggers left at around ~200 healing per trigger. Group 2 has a fighter with no damage and a ~500 point ward still up. Group 3's fighter is down 700 health, but has a regneration that will heal most of that over the next couple rounds of combat...while the monster is still attacking for around 1000 damage per round.</P> <P>The Templar's already casting his single target reactive. The Mystic's already casting her single target ward. The Furie's switching to a direct heal because the 5000 health fighter is down about 14-15% already. He's not going to cast Back into the Fray or Hibernation in this situation because that's a waste of health and casting the single target regeneration isn't going to be fast enough to bring the fighter's health back up fast enough. </P> <P>...</P> <P>Care to continue?</P> <P><BR> </P> <DIV><FONT size=1><EM>NOTE: Hypothetical situation. I can use exact numbers and exact spell names (not to mention casting times and power costs) if someone wants to complain though.</EM> </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Kendricke on <SPAN class=date_text>11-23-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:18 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The problem with this example is you assume a druid will cast regen prior to pull. My Fury always casts after 1st hit, and it is always only after first hit as my Furies cast time is 1 sec. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Fair enough. So you cast after the pull. You're still casting consistent healing as opposed to dealing with damage as it's dealt. It's really just two different flavors of ice cream. A few months back, everyone preferred Templar because it was the flavor of the month down at 32 SOE's. Now, the new big thing is Fury. Whatever brand you want to buy...buy. It's a personal preference.</P> <P>I still prefer Templar flavor. You apparantly prefer the new big thing. Whatever floats your banana split boat is good for you, right? </P> <P>In short: If you're not happy with Templars, then do something constructive about that unhappiness. Either pick a new class; pick a new game; or find a way to constructively word your suggestions to the developers. </P> <P>I've finally tired of trying to convince folks that what I like is what I like. If you don't like what I like, then go grab a different flavor or hit a different store. Whatever you do, just do something other than sitting in the corner with a flavor you obviously hate dripping all over you griping to anyone within earshot how lousy the ice cream is and how horrible the store is for making it. Some of us are still pretty happy with the Templar flavor in front of us. </P> <P> </P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I have invested 9 months into my Templar. I want to be happy with him again. The only way to do that is to </P> <P>A. Bring it to peoples attention that we have a problem.</P> <P>B. Work on a solution for said problem.</P> <P>Now everything that I want to have happen for Templars wont, some of it wont be balanced, some of it wont follow SoE's new vision of Templars. Some of it will. The objective of the discourse here is to get ideas solidified (multiple ideas) and submit them to SoE. </P> <P>Some will find that Templars are pretty ok and just need some tweaks. Some will think some spells need to be dumped and overhauled. Some will think our shields and melee Danage need to be looked into. Some think we need an offensive stance. Some think armor is broke currently. Some think lottery heals (I love that new term for some of our spells) are not popping enough. Some will find we need a third DH line on another timer. Some say our reactives are too strong, some say not strong enough. Some say our buffs need work. Some say our debuffs need work. Some say Wis should affect healing.</P> <P>These are the ideas we need to bring forward as a group, and it would be nice to see Dev response on them, even if it is a flat out no, so that we can move on with a new idea. </P> <P>But Kendricke my friend, you are not a Dev. Your input is valued when you are not belittling people. Condescension is not necessary for civil discourse, so please just ratchet it down a notch for us.</P>

Dalchar

11-24-2005, 09:02 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:<span> I'm personally guessing the reason furies have BITF is for two reasons: the strongest upfront fastest healing, and the complete lack of defensive utility (other than 1 core priest concentration buff variations we all get), rather than give something defensive to prevent incoming damage, the ability to replace damage was provided.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>So where is templar DPS version of BITF? Templars have no offensive utility so where is it? Or do you mean there is a double standard here? One for templars (= defensive class, no attack capability needed) and one for furies (= offensive class, needs best healing because they have no defensive utility).</span><div></div><hr></blockquote> Nope, no double standard, come up with one that makes sense and I'll support ya 100% Timmy! Nuke that does additional dmg when target is over 50% <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I dunno something funky. Funny thing is that (if I remember right) templars hated having consecrate in beta instead of DA, it got swapped and people still aren't happy <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I personally thought consecrate would have been a great addition to the arsenal...and sounds like something a devout priest would have over a pally... but that's just me. I'm just trying to encourage people to look at more than "another heal on a different timer". Yes, it is that, but you have to look at the class itself, what it does and doesn't have, and how things play out based on those. Focusing entirely on the fact that it is a spell on separate timer doesn't provide any indication of why it may be as such in the first place, when there very well may be a reason for it. Granting a separate timer heal doesn't strike me as something that'd be just done "just because and to spite everyone else", I don't think the developers actually have it out to make anyone miserable or less desireable. The way I look at it... Druids look like they take care of healing by replenishing it more with higher hp/s (almost exclusively Directs and regens). Shamen look to be primarily preventitive (debuffs, wards, slows) to taking care of healing. Clerics seem to be a combination of extra healing (albeit lamely lotto), reactionary, and preventative (benefaction? absorbing hits entirely, reactive heals, stuns, pacifies). I think a neat way to try and alter the lotto heal (that so many seem to hate) would be to maybe look at Fury's Fae Flames honestly though, make it so temps can have people meleeing proc 3 consecutive heals when they hit the mob within the 20s buff duration. All you gotta do is hit.</span><div></div>

kenji

11-24-2005, 09:44 AM

<P>Dalcharis told the funny things abt Reverence is great heal .</P> <P>for a long fight, lets say longer than 3 mins. u play with Reverence and ask the MT to burn 1000 power every 15 sec so it can compare to BITF, the tank must have 4000 power to use every min... must be kidding me, even a priest myself i cant burn 4k power every min and keep it up 3 mins /grin.</P> <P>as i said in another post (or this...dont wanna look again) Reverence is GREAT when your target isnt Stunned or Stifled or OOP. it's 0 heal if they have 1 of them landed.</P> <P>u cant spam Reverence on same target and ask him to powerburn all the time.</P> <P>u cant let 2+ Templar casting Reverence on MT, but u can find 6 fury to cast same BITF on MT.</P> <P>who still think Reverence is better in any case? except it can cast on self? /grin</P> <P>and i dont care how weak Fury can buff, if Templar doesnt have better HPS / DPS , we are just a buffbot to boost 1 person (or a few if need aggro switch).</P> <P>if u are offensive priest, why on earth will have extra healing power to add-up, while defensive priest dont? =)</P>

Dalchar

11-24-2005, 08:03 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>kenjiso wrote:<p>Dalcharis told the funny things abt Reverence is great heal .</p> <p>for a long fight, lets say longer than 3 mins. u play with Reverence and ask the MT to burn 1000 power every 15 sec so it can compare to BITF, the tank must have 4000 power to use every min... must be kidding me, even a priest myself i cant burn 4k power every min and keep it up 3 mins /grin.</p> <p>as i said in another post (or this...dont wanna look again) Reverence is GREAT when your target isnt Stunned or Stifled or OOP. it's 0 heal if they have 1 of them landed.</p> <p>u cant spam Reverence on same target and ask him to powerburn all the time.</p> <p>u cant let 2+ Templar casting Reverence on MT, but u can find 6 fury to cast same BITF on MT.</p> <p>who still think Reverence is better in any case? except it can cast on self? /grin</p> <p>and i dont care how weak Fury can buff, if Templar doesnt have better HPS / DPS , we are just a buffbot to boost 1 person (or a few if need aggro switch).</p> <p>if u are offensive priest, why on earth will have extra healing power to add-up, while defensive priest dont? =)</p><hr></blockquote> My guess was that if you can't prevent it, you throw hp/s at it. I think that we can all agree that all 6 priests, regardless of what they do or don't have, how effective a soloer or anything else, all priests need to be viable for solo healing a group in 99% of the situations where things are considered a one-group encounter. As that is their primary function. My personal guess was that since fury has nothing preventative in nature against high damage mobs (named for example), that the developers chose the route of "throw hp at it" (which is similar to the way wardens heal). The tank still took the damage, and it's still got to be replaced. And in a tougher encounter, tiny heals combined with lack of defenses (unless the recast time on the heals were approximately 2-3s), the small heals as they are currently, wouldn't hold up in those tough situations. The power had to be burned, there was no chance of a lucky lotto, no absorbing of any hits ever, no bigger hp buffer, no several second stun, no pacify named and kill the surrounding mobs, no slows, essentially no nothing. I think that's why the extra heal was thrown in, for the more challenging 50+ content. Pre-50, mobs didn't tend to have ice comet, devastation, assassination, or any other odd and end spells that progressively get nastier. You could argue that we burned the mob down faster... but... I can assure you, I almost never have an opportunity to nuke even once and likely not able to cast a single offensive spell on a tough encounter, and the tank regardless of if the fight lasts 5-10s less, still got the bejesus beaten out of him due to all the lack of defenses. My regen didn't heal for 1500 in mere seconds when the mob let loose a flurry of attacks, all I really have to depend on are the direct heals. Is that fair, or the right choice? I'm not sure. I never claimed all was "fair" and "right". Some people would argue preventing the damage from happening in the first place is best. I can tell you I'd not be able to keep a tank up w/o it in poet's palace. I can just tell you that it's all that allows me to keep a group up and functioning through places like Poet's, and deeper Silent City etc. even with adept3s across the board. About all I can do is tell you how things pan out for me. I'm sure several people don't believe it for one minute and regardless of anything don't begin to care, they see something and they demand it, they don't care about any possible reasons why something may be in place or care to contemplate it. All I can do is try and explain how my class does work (without all the wild claims and misinformation), and read up and try and come up with ideas for why things may be the way they are. I've never claimed templar didn't need this, that or the other. I even try to even make suggestions and see what other people may think and maybe get them suggested into the big long list of suggestions you guys have. Although I don't post them in that thread as I'm not a templar to make the suggestion, and I imagine I would generally would get hollered at regardless... because I don't play that class, ironically though they'll feel free to tell me how my class works and functions because they read all about it and therefore know how everything works all the way up to 60 in even the more rare of circumstances and will further dictate why we do or don't need what we do or don't have.</span><div></div>

Zapo

11-24-2005, 08:15 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dalcharis wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> I can tell you I'd not be able to keep a tank up w/o it in poet's palace. I can just tell you that it's all that allows me to keep a group up and functioning through places like Poet's, and deeper Silent City etc. even with adept3s across the board. </SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You know, I read this several times now that some healers (saw it from wardens and furies) are able to keep a group in Poet's Palace alive as only healer in group.</P> <P>I can tell you, me as a templar, I can't. Maybe it's just me, or that I am "only" 58, or I am simply a bad healer. Although most of my primary heal spells are adept 3 and I don't think I am that bad at doing my job. But I tried and we died 9 times to the named eye (64+++ needed for the access to third floor) trying everything I had in repertoire to keep the tank alive. Maybe it was because we had a lvl 59 paladin (doubt that). But with my current spells there is no way I can keep up with the damage that little eye is doing. And I never was short on power. Maybe sometime if I am lucky and any of those lotto spells triggers.....</P> <P>btw, have all those ancient spells, not that they do help a lot in there.</P> <P>P.S. Please don't start now a Fury/Templar flame war again. That is not my intention.</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Anthur on <span class=date_text>11-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:07 AM</span>

kenji

11-25-2005, 06:17 AM

<DIV>i agree that Fury should heal the same if Templar can do same dps as Furies but not Furies heal the same as others and out dps everyone.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>it's plain sux when a Fury can do 300 dps while Templar can only do 100 dps.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ancient Spells should pump the class to better at what they should, not defend their weakness, u can never see Wiz can get a Plate armor buff just to make them survive longer. they got more DPS from their Ancient Spells.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templar is a better in nothing, not better in Heal , not better in DPS , not better in buffs (all priests work completely different)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>what i dont understand is, if Templar and Fury has same burst heal (some post earlier said they can heal same 8-9k dmg per min) why u only think Fury should get their extra heal, while Templar shouldnt? bigger heal longer recast, smaller heal shorter recast, why should Fury get EXTRA heal? if Fury cant keep up with 2 direct heals, Templar cant keep up as well.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Stuns, Slows - this only lower the speed with RH proc. the slower the mob hit, the slower the RH proc, but BETTER for regen heals.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>str debuffs - this only affect numbers, like 550 becomes 500, 1050 becomes 1000, not working as well as Slow, which drop by %, with the increase of pure melee dps, slow >>>> str debuffs now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>with Big Hits, Reactive wont be better than Regen, thus Templar need to burn direct heals while facing Big Hits Named, i am sure Templar wont heal better than Furies on big hits like IceComet / Devastation (group regen >>>>>>>>>>>>>> group reactive in AoE dmg, i think people 200% agree on this.. and Extra Hib?!)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>templar isnt broken, but just fury too shine, in dps, in burst heal, in group healing.</DIV>

kenji

11-25-2005, 07:08 AM

<P>/Counter Fury mode on</P> <P>Dalcharis : The power had to be burned, there was no chance of a lucky lotto, no absorbing of any hits ever, no bigger hp buffer, no several second stun, no pacify named and kill the surrounding mobs, no slows, essentially no nothing.</P> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>the power</FONT></DIV> <DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc3300>58 Ferine Vim - (Adept III) </FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>Increases INT of target by 95. </FONT>Increases Max Power of target by 646.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>no chance of a lucky lotto</FONT></DIV> <DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc3300>47 Ferine Mask - (Master 1) </FONT>Increases in-combat health regen Per-tick of Group member (AE) by 62. Increases mitigation of group members (AE) vs all physical damage by 564.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>each tick 62 hp, who needs a lotto heal that may proc once or twice a min / fight ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>no bigger hp buffer</FONT></DIV> <DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc3300>48 Incomparable Predator - (Master 1) </FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>Increases STA + AGI of caster by 90.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>essentially no nothing</FONT></DIV> <DIV>35 Spirit of the Bat - Increase In-Combat power regen</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc3300>52 Thornskin - </FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>Damage Shield</FONT></DIV> <DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc3300>60 Primal Spirit - (Adept III) </FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>Increases INT and WIS of group members (AE) by 65. (3 resist every wis, 195 all resist, int boost dmg)</FONT></DIV> <DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc3300>47 Irritating Swarm - (Master 1)</FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>Decreases power of trg by 84 every 6 seconds. </FONT>Interrupts target. Decreases focus of target by 45. Decreases disruption, ordination, ministration and subjugation of target by 23.</DIV></DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>u seriously playing a fury? or u dont think they are advantage? the more DPS your group doing the faster the fight end, the less heals required, the less power burnt by group, the more time u gain to rest which does have extra regen value due to SoE's setting.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>HP buffs isnt a reason furies get so much extras</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>

quetzaqotl

11-25-2005, 07:32 AM

<DIV>Man, pick some nice spells from the fury line and dont compare em against templar spells yes thats the right way to go.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>ferine vim takes 1 conc yes we buff int</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Inc pred is self only and crap sta and agi even +90 doesnt increase anything much try it yourself its kind of useless.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thornskin yes our offensive utility yay</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Primal spirit yes we buff int and wis again</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Irritating swarm is crap it doesnt do anything against mobs its a useless spell and you made me laugh cause if you read the fury boards youd know this ones crap, in pvp its cool tho but against mobs its useless its a big nerf compared to how cool this one was.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What extras do we get kenj I havent seen you post any templar spells to compare we dont have more spells than templars do we?</DIV> <DIV>Its cool you at least took the effort to look up spells but looking at things on paper doesnt make it great in game.</DIV> <DIV>Also you should take that /counter fury mode off that isnt so nice is it?</DIV> <DIV>Also saying furies shine to much isnt even a very well veiled call for a nerf, you can do what you want but maybe you should focus you attention on your own class or perhaps compare yourself to another healer class as I dont see many healers unhappy on the boards except for templars.</DIV> <DIV>Furies are the target of a lot of [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] on these boards and it has to stop you might believe we are overpowered and want us getting nerfed or whatever but maybe you should try and compare yourself to other classes who have other things over templars hmm maybe better debuffs omg no another class overpowered compared to templars or perhaps have more effeciency.</DIV> <DIV>You begin with thinking everyone has the same stuff templars have and the speciality another class has, furies for instance: added dmg is an extra we get on top of our templar skills.</DIV> <DIV>That is bs if some spells are broken go and try to get those fixed as you have a different toolbox than furies have.</DIV> <DIV>All healers have the same ammount of spells we dont have anything extra over you if we have an offensive oreintated spell you can bet your [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] you have another spell to counter that (some spells are maybe underpowered or not working as intended so try and get your act together to get those spells fixed).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templars are more set up for preventing dmg and buffing defense (no I dont mean the stat def but defensivish spells) furies do more offensively.</DIV> <DIV>Put some templar spells next to the fury spells and lets see which ones are cooler, as this is a bit silly. </DIV><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:51 PM</span>

Dalchar

11-25-2005, 07:39 AM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>kenjiso wrote:<p>/Counter Fury mode on <font color="#6633ff">Well this sounds kinda rude when I'm attempting to be pleasant.</font> </p> <p>Dalcharis : The power had to be burned, there was no chance of a lucky lotto, no absorbing of any hits ever, no bigger hp buffer, no several second stun, no pacify named and kill the surrounding mobs, no slows, essentially no nothing.</p> <div><font color="#ffff00">the power</font></div> <div> <div><font color="#cc3300">58 Ferine Vim - (Adept III) </font><font color="#ffffff">Increases INT of target by 95. </font>Increases Max Power of target by 646. <font color="#6633ff">This is the reason there's no big hp buffer</font> </div> <div> </div> <div><font color="#ffff00">no chance of a lucky lotto</font></div> <div> <div><font color="#cc3300">47 Ferine Mask - (Master 1) </font>Increases in-combat health regen Per-tick of Group member (AE) by 62. Increases mitigation of group members (AE) vs all physical damage by 564.</div> <div> </div> <div>each tick 62 hp, who needs a lotto heal that may proc once or twice a min / fight ? <font color="#6633ff">This is the only defensive buff furies get, it's a variation on the same one all priests get. And I've mentioned it before as the only buff before albeit maybe not in this post or directly. Nor do I believe it is that 62 hp every 3s it's like very 6.</font> </div> <div> </div> <div><font color="#ffff00">no bigger hp buffer</font></div> <div> <div><font color="#cc3300">48 Incomparable Predator - (Master 1) </font><font color="#ffffff">Increases STA + AGI of caster by 90. <font color="#6633ff">Self only buff</font> </font></div> <div> </div> <div><font color="#ffff00">essentially no nothing</font></div> <div>35 Spirit of the Bat - Increase In-Combat power regen</div> <div><font color="#cc3300">52 Thornskin - </font><font color="#ffffff">Damage Shield</font></div> <div> <div><font color="#cc3300">60 Primal Spirit - (Adept III) </font><font color="#ffffff">Increases INT and WIS of group members (AE) by 65. (3 resist every wis, 195 all resist, int boost dmg)</font></div> <div> <div><font color="#cc3300">47 Irritating Swarm - (Master 1)</font><font color="#ffffff">Decreases power of trg by 84 every 6 seconds. </font>Interrupts target. Decreases focus of target by 45. Decreases disruption, ordination, ministration and subjugation of target by 23. <font color="#6633ff"> None of these actively prevent your tank from getting smacked for full--an interrupt is not a stun and you'll also notice if you check various other forums, disruption, etc debuffs affect nearly nothing unless it's pvp. </font></div></div></div> <div> </div> <div>u seriously playing a fury?<font color="#6633ff"> Since Day 1, thank you.</font> or u dont think they are advantage <font color="#6633ff">Did I ever once claim everything was 100% blanaced?</font>? the more DPS your group doing the faster the fight end, the less heals required, the less power burnt by group, the more time u gain to rest which does have extra regen value due to SoE's setting.</div> <div> </div> <div>HP buffs isnt a reason furies get so much extras</div></div></div></div><hr></blockquote> As I said, none of this is going to change the tank from not getting smacked or decreaseing incoming dps at all. The fight may last 5-10s less than the 30s it may normally have taken. In the mean time the tank is taking the full damage at all times, that was the key point I was tring to make. That was my possible suggestion as to why things may be the way they are. I'm not saying everything is the way it should be by any means. All I've been suggesting is things I observe within my class based on playing it daily since day 1 and then things I've learned and read about from other players and guildies. I'm not trying to tell you how everything should be or what's needed by others. Or that everything's just fine and dandy, I'm telling you what I observe. Now if you really really wanna compare...These 5 provide additional healing or halt incoming dps. Now, if they're effective as they should be, is another matter but that's not the heart of the matter. These are all different spell lines, sorry I didn't go through and include ancients and include everything, but you get the idea. Sign of Weakness Placate Mark of Princes Vigilant Benediction Force Submission Those are 5 spells that in addition to the Bravery/Valor line (The fury's variation of this line is the Ferine Mask you pointed out) that decrease incoming dps on your tank/party or alternatively can randomly add some healing. Plus the HP buffer that Clerics provide instead of power, however, power has to be spent to be of use, you can argue til you're blue in the face which would be better <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class=date_text>11-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:07 PM</span>

Dalchar

11-25-2005, 07:45 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Anthur wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Dalcharis wrote:<span> I can tell you I'd not be able to keep a tank up w/o it in poet's palace. I can just tell you that it's all that allows me to keep a group up and functioning through places like Poet's, and deeper Silent City etc. even with adept3s across the board. </span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>You know, I read this several times now that some healers (saw it from wardens and furies) are able to keep a group in Poet's Palace alive as only healer in group.</p> <p>I can tell you, me as a templar, I can't. Maybe it's just me, or that I am "only" 58, or I am simply a bad healer. Although most of my primary heal spells are adept 3 and I don't think I am that bad at doing my job. But I tried and we died 9 times to the named eye (64+++ needed for the access to third floor) trying everything I had in repertoire to keep the tank alive. Maybe it was because we had a lvl 59 paladin (doubt that). But with my current spells there is no way I can keep up with the damage that little eye is doing. And I never was short on power. Maybe sometime if I am lucky and any of those lotto spells triggers.....</p> <p>btw, have all those ancient spells, not that they do help a lot in there.</p> <p>P.S. Please don't start now a Fury/Templar flame war again. That is not my intention.</p> <div></div> <p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p>Message Edited by Anthur on <span class="date_text">11-24-2005</span> <span class="time_text">08:07 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote> Actually you will notice a huge difference based on your tank, I have close calls even with a fully fabled tank, with him at 60. I'd give it another shot if your tank is cobalt+fabled geared and 60. it's rather surprisingly night and day as to what spells and combat arts land when you get to 60, I noticed and so did several guildies. The sub 60 tank we needed a second healer but still couldn't do the top floor named, the 60 tank I was able to do it all alone, but those guys are also geared very nicely too. But yes, I'd never be able to solo heal on the named cyclops or the eye w/o BITF. The fully fabled tank goes from full green to orange or red in a matter of about 2 seconds.</span><div></div>

kenji

11-25-2005, 09:37 AM

<DIV>group WIS buff is actually cutting down the dmg with it's resist gained. templar has 1, but it only work on 1 target.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>if the Fury believe that nothing is 100% balanced, then there IS actually a best healer. and ATM, the best "healer" clearly is Fury.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>the best buffbot maybe templar, but i dont have interest to be one</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sign of Weakness -- currently this 1 prevent aoe... and after it breaks sometimes will charge u (maybe intented, maybe bugged), so u mez a boss and this happen you are 100% dead<BR>Placate -- emergency spell...recast...mystic one is stun....pacify doesnt stop casting.<BR>Mark of Princes -- doesnt proc if not melee... and u have to play with lotto <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR>Vigilant Benediction -- lotto absorber... which i never read "the hit is absorbed for xx dmg" ... sounds different to ward... and it's not yet work .... on Test : The proc from Unyielding Benediction will once again absorb physical attacks. (which... T5 and T6 results same proc %... same use...)</DIV> <DIV>Force Submission -- good stun i must say, 30 sec recast, 3 sec cast, stun for 8 sec at M1?<BR></DIV> <DIV>anyways...stun is good idea, and pacify is good, but if the mob is stunned, Reactive Heals wont proc, and wasted. stop the DPS from mobs also stop the HPS from us. so good for templar? maybe. or not.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>we have the same HPS with base direct heal, but u got an extra heal now... if u still claim we are balanced, fine. if the lack of defensive buffs can ask for extra heals, i think the lack of DPS from templar can also ask for extra buffs... but then fury will ask for utilties boost? we will Never balanced. why must our healing ability balanced? </DIV>

Timaarit

11-25-2005, 11:32 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>quetzaqotl wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div>Man, pick some nice spells from the fury line and dont compare em against templar spells yes thats the right way to go.</div><hr></blockquote>How about Spirit of the Bat vs. templar spell? Furies get an incombat power reg. What do templars get? A very small heal that gives some power back to caster. But - like most templar spells, it is useless in real situation since it shares the timer with out other single target heal. And btw, nice for you to give such a good comparison of fury and templar spells and then criticizing others for doing the same as you...</span><div></div>

Timaarit

11-25-2005, 11:43 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote<span> Sign of Weakness Placate Mark of Princes Vigilant Benediction Force Submission Those are 5 spells that in addition to the Bravery/Valor line (The fury's variation of this line is the Ferine Mask you pointed out) that decrease incoming dps on your tank/party or alternatively can randomly add some healing. Plus the HP buffer that Clerics provide instead of power, however, power has to be spent to be of use, you can argue til you're blue in the face which would be better <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class="date_text">11-24-2005</span> <span class="time_text">07:07 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>With Sign and Force Submission, a templar can keep one target out of fight for a while, at lvl 55 I can keep it off from fight for good with those 2 spells. Unless someone misses the macros /gsay. But then if I get aggro from this, I have to start swithching targets from mt to this one and if I can do that, well, then that one is not actually anything to worry so the mezzing is useless. And if I need to heal mt, well, then I really cannot start soloing with add. These are fun to play with for a few fights, but in the end, the mez are useless. I still use the stun to reduce targets DPS, but then again, this means that my core healing will not work while target is stunned since the mob is not hitting. How useful... Mark line is a divine resist debuff and gives some minor lotto healing (30 / 2s at 55 and adept III). Vigilant benediction doesn't even work, it will be patched in lu17. But yet another lottery spell. As for Placate, every priest gets an aggro reducer so this is not a templar only spell.</span><div></div>

Dalchar

11-25-2005, 04:09 PM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>kenjiso wrote:<div>we have the same HPS with base direct heal, but u got an extra heal now... if u still claim we are balanced, fine. if the lack of defensive buffs can ask for extra heals, i think the lack of DPS from templar can also ask for extra buffs... but then fury will ask for utilties boost? we will Never balanced. why must our healing ability balanced? </div><hr></blockquote>I didn't claim balance was achieved, not once. Just how things at least seem to work within my own class and illustrate it's probably not always heal = heal and dps out = dps in or stun = invis, or leather options = plate options. Perhaps maybe more along the lines of what I'm thinking is what things seem to look more like EQ2 is TRYING to do is: excessive healing (druid)= prevenative healing (shaman) = preventative buffs/lotto heals/react (cleric). That's just how things seem to be looking set up. Warden base heals heal for about 25% more over a duration than templars (33% more than fury until 52 where furies start being anywhere between base state and warden) with the two direct heal lines. But we all watched what happened when their heal = templar heal, they slowly watched tanks die, almost 100% of the time, unless the mob was like, green to the tank. So what works for one class, may not work or suffice for another. And yes I fully support that lotto = lame boring buffing and something more reliable should be in place. I'd also fully support pacifies and stuns being worked over too, as half the problem seems to arise from how effective they seem to be. You'll also note that a lot of the fury community is generally rather pleasant and generally level-headed, and would fully support templars getting altered as necessary. What they don't like, is being told what they can or cannot do by those whom don't have the full story or accurrate information or only take things at complete face value w/o looking farther than the nose. Just because someone ran a parser and presents it as fact, doesn't mean everything you need to know to evaluate how those results were obtained and what's balanced. Right now though, I think all priests should be happy they heal enough that groups can and do succeed, even if things aren't quite right... there's like 3-4 classes that lack sorely in their primary function (assassins doing only fighter-ish dps and enchanters generaly lame in about 90% of everything) before we worry immensely about balancing, they need to get those classes to actually function LOL.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class=date_text>11-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:19 AM</span>

Zapo

11-25-2005, 04:37 PM

<P>Ok, as final update on Poet's Palace. We did succeed yesterday. Solution was easy, we included a Warden (54) into the group. This time it was a good but sure fight (no death at all against the eye). Only time I really felt that I as a Templar was needed in that special fight was when the eye did some spike damage (which usually seems to be at around 40% health or below). I casted my direct heals ( as slow as ever) and we managed the situation. Kept up my regens and other lotto spells during the fight anyway but they didn't do much at all. Btw, paladin was 60 now, but same gear as before (was already legendary, like rest of group too, only very few fabled items per character).</P> <P>So my conclusion for this fight is that the Templar is a good secondary healer. But you need a different healer class to do that fight with one healer (warden or fury seems to be ok). That feeling I got in many tough fights, which are not doable with a templar only but when a different healer is included there isn't much left to do for the Templar.</P> <P>Anyway, this doesn't really prove anything. Just a personal report from a special encounter. In my oppinion only developers have the means to do real tests in order to compare different healer classes in different situations. All that we can do is provide very situational data/input.</P> <P>P.S. Looks like even SOE tried to bribe me. A no-trade fabled plate helm dropped. Helm of True Insight if I remember correct (was late). It' a better helm than the cobalt helm as it has more WIS, resists and other stats but has about 9 Int less than the cobalt one. So now I can also swap my helm for solo (cobalt) and group (fabled) too. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P>

SirStike

11-25-2005, 05:04 PM

<DIV>Borekai wrote:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Furies are the best healers. Gratz. Doesn't mean you aren't balanced in your own right. <BR><BR>You are just the best healers. And have the best DPS. And the best utility. Triple Gratz.<BR></DIV> <DIV>__________________________________________________ _______________________</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Nice that you think Furies are best healers in game. Was just glad that we were made more group worthy. Furies were a secondary thought as a group healer prior to expansion. Nice to be on same level for a change, which is what I am sensing the Templars are most unhappy about. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for DPS, we always did have the bigger nukes in the game for healers, so that hasnt changed, just got more damage output, but I think all healers nukes got increased to some capacity post expansion, didn't they?. And while we have good Nukes, we have crap for debuffs, so when mob hits us, we getting the full damage the mob is offering, not a debuffed version of it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And best utility? You talking group invis. Honestly, you can have it. Its more of a curse than a blessing. I would take the ability to call home whenever I want, vs. waiting an hour or running back through the zones. I can't count how many wasted hours doing quests we wasted running across zones because my timers we just used getting a update. And group invis was also a huge time waster. Lets see how many trips I have taken guild groups down to Naggy in SE, only to wipe because someone broke invis half way down, and we have to do run all over. Not to forget, that during the prismatic runs, was taking guildies down daily, because Invis Totems were not available, so there was not alot of options for them. If that is the same benefit you were talking about I would gladly trade now, as invis totems are safer, easier, and really makes this benefit Furies have with group invis alot less of a benefit. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hellion lvl58 Fury</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Andu

11-25-2005, 05:54 PM

<P>Take a look at this thread from the Abilities forum.</P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=70101" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=70101</A></P> <P>The emphasis is on enchanters/bards not being required and so noone has even mentioned healing in particular.</P> <P>Now look at how many of those suggestions include fury and how many include other healing classes.</P> <P>The fact is, whether it's merely perceived or not, furies are being picked over other healing classes on a regular basis because of their DPS. The fact their healing is 5%, 10% even 20% worse (which it isn't) than other healers is of total irrelevance because most mobs get dropped so fast it makes no difference.</P>

quetzaqotl

11-25-2005, 06:09 PM

<P>Well they mentioned a templar in there too noone mentioned a warden, mystic, defiler or an inquisitor guess theyre more broken than templars then eh?</P> <P>If someone starts building a group with mages and a dps tank like a bruiser people add things to it sure if you group with a couple of mages it's not strange that you want a fury for the int buffs when your grouping with more than 2 mages.</P> <P>If the group ste up is fury friendly sure go with a fury but there are different circumstances where another healer would shine more.</P> <P>Also who died and made them god btw? So if 4 people pick a fury cause the previous poster had a fury in group, does that prove anything?</P> <P>No dont think so, nice of you to drag a thread in here guess youll now link the thread of the perfect raid force: 8 bruisers+16 furies and say how unbeatable that is lol.</P> <P>People are blinded.</P> <DIV>And again maybe it would be fun to try and compare yourself to another healing class who think theyre fine, cause that would make em overpowered eh.</DIV> <DIV>Hmm maybe do a templars vs inq comparison or maybe against a defiler or mystic or whatever as this whole fury do more dps and heal like templars bs is getting stale.</DIV><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:10 AM</span>

Timaarit

11-25-2005, 06:15 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>quetzaqotl wrote:<div></div><p>If the group ste up is fury friendly sure go with a fury but there are different circumstances where another healer would shine more.</p> <hr></blockquote>But that wouldn't be a good xp group then anymore. Fact no. 1: for XP setup, brawler tank is best. Fact no. 2 : fury is by far the best healer for brawler class.</span><div></div>

quetzaqotl

11-25-2005, 06:26 PM

<P>Oh my then its not the furies fault then I blame those pesky brawlers!</P> <P>Really now tim :smileyvery-happy:</P>

Timaarit

11-25-2005, 06:34 PM

<span><blockquote>quetzaqotl wrote:<p>Oh my then its not the furies fault then I blame those pesky brawlers!</p> <p>Really now tim :smileyvery-happy:</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Well for xp group, pick one of these: A: healing 1000, damage 100 B: healing 950, damage 300 If you say A, I will know you have never been in xp group.</span><div></div>

Andu

11-25-2005, 06:59 PM

**REMOVED DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT**<p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:42 AM</span>

stargazer5678

11-25-2005, 09:42 PM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote:<BR> <P>Well they mentioned a templar in there too noone mentioned a warden, mystic, defiler or an inquisitor guess theyre more broken than templars then eh?</P> <P>If someone starts building a group with mages and a dps tank like a bruiser people add things to it sure if you group with a couple of mages it's not strange that you want a fury for the int buffs when your grouping with more than 2 mages.</P> <P>If the group ste up is fury friendly sure go with a fury but there are different circumstances where another healer would shine more.</P> <P>Also who died and made them god btw? So if 4 people pick a fury cause the previous poster had a fury in group, does that prove anything?</P> <P>No dont think so, nice of you to drag a thread in here guess youll now link the thread of the perfect raid force: 8 bruisers+16 furies and say how unbeatable that is lol.</P> <P>People are blinded.</P> <DIV>And again maybe it would be fun to try and compare yourself to another healing class who think theyre fine, cause that would make em overpowered eh.</DIV> <DIV>Hmm maybe do a templars vs inq comparison or maybe against a defiler or mystic or whatever as this whole fury do more dps and heal like templars bs is getting stale.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <SPAN class=date_text>11-25-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>05:10 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I'm not saying any of those things. I merely make the point (that some Templar's have disputed) that if a Fury and another healer put their LFG flags on I know who I'm putting my money on over who gets a group first.</P> <P>Noone died and made them god, they are merely representative of the view that most players now hold.</P> <P>I also agree that the "fury do more dps and heal like templars bs" is getting stale. It's about f'ing time it was fixed.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You know, you are right, let's fix things.</DIV> <DIV>1. Replace Templar's reactives with Regens. This is what you guys want, right? All agree?</DIV> <DIV>2. Give them powerful nukes. Good?</DIV> <DIV>3. Give them SoW and group invis. Happy?</DIV> <DIV>4. Replace plate armor with leather. Not happy? Too bad.</DIV> <DIV>5. Take away their defensive buffs and give them offensive buffs. Great, or is it?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So now, we have 2 Fury classes, we can call them Fury A and Fury B or something like that. Hey, let's all get creative here, since we can't be creative when it comes to the actual game..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>May be later some classes decide to follow similar path. Who needs versatility? We just actualy need 4 classes in the game: tank, mage, scout and priest. This way it's all balanced, no more fights and disagreements.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Am I twisting it? Is it too much? Probably. Just trying to get my point across. You can't have it all or else the game will change in such a way that you will hate it and quit soon. I truly believe that Templars have no right to claim that Furies get extra healing. Play our class then judge. We do more DPS, this is undeniable and intentional. You want to get more DPS? By all means. Should your DPS equal Furie's DPS? No. I understand that templars have some problems. Just stick together figure out the problems, agree on them and come up with the fix(s) and send your suggestions to devs. Stop the "nerf fury" thing.</DIV>

Timaarit

11-25-2005, 10:28 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>stargazer5678 wrote:<div>Stop the "nerf fury" thing.</div><hr></blockquote>That 'thing' is totally in your (and other furies who think that templars are after nerfing furies) own head. Only people who mention nerfing furies are furies who come here to complain that templars want to nerf furies. Wake up. No one is demanding that furies should be nerfed.</span><div></div>

Nari

11-25-2005, 10:29 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>stargazer5678 wrote: <div> Stop the "nerf fury" thing.</div><hr></blockquote>Who has said that? Just because templars are looking at the other priests for reference doesn't mean that everyone thinks you should be nerfed.</span><div></div>

Andu

11-25-2005, 10:50 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> stargazer5678 wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>You know, you are right, let's fix things.</DIV> <DIV>1. Replace Templar's reactives with Regens. This is what you guys want, right? All agree?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Obviously not, you are just being silly now.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>2. Give them powerful nukes. Good?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Not necessarily nukes, just some DPS of some kind.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3. Give them SoW and group invis. Happy?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Nope, don't want either really. Just some useful utility, not random lotto proc heals that we cannot cast in time before the mob dies.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>4. Replace plate armor with leather. Not happy? Too bad.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Cant say that would bother me in the slightest. After 5 mins in Ahket Aken I'll have more armour than I'll know what to do with anyway :smileyhappy:</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>5. Take away their defensive buffs and give them offensive buffs. Great, or is it?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Nope, don't want offensive buffs, that's an Inquisitor's job.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So now, we have 2 Fury classes, we can call them Fury A and Fury B or something like that. Hey, let's all get creative here, since we can't be creative when it comes to the actual game..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>May be later some classes decide to follow similar path. Who needs versatility? We just actualy need 4 classes in the game: tank, mage, scout and priest. This way it's all balanced, no more fights and disagreements.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Your sarcasm is mildly funny but in the end you are right. However, it all boils down to the idiocy that is "all classes must heal equally". Because with 6 healing classes without any diversity in healing power, there is no room for diversity in utility and DPS.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Am I twisting it? Is it too much? Probably. Just trying to get my point across. You can't have it all or else the game will change in such a way that you will hate it and quit soon. I truly believe that Templars have no right to claim that Furies get extra healing. Play our class then judge. We do more DPS, this is undeniable and intentional. You want to get more DPS? By all means. Should your DPS equal Furie's DPS? No. I understand that templars have some problems. Just stick together figure out the problems, agree on them and come up with the fix(s) and send your suggestions to devs. Stop the "nerf fury" thing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Can't ever remember seeing a Templar ask for furies to be nerfed (except in anger to some Fury trolling our board). You are just being paranoid because currently you are top of the tree and can feel the pressure (we know, we had that mantle before LU13). When SOE gets off their backsides to do something about this they will have the choice of improving 5 classes or nerfing 1 and all you Furies are terrified about them picking option 2 - to the extent you imagine everyone else is calling for nerfs to you. Everyone on the priest class boards does NOT want to see you guys nerfed. You have a fun and well balanced class. We just want to share the fun somehow.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Takeo1

11-25-2005, 11:41 PM

<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> stargazer5678 wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Am I twisting it? Is it too much? Probably. Just trying to get my point across. You can't have it all or else the game will change in such a way that you will hate it and quit soon. I truly believe that Templars have no right to claim that Furies get extra healing. Play our class then judge. We do more DPS, this is undeniable and intentional. You want to get more DPS? By all means. Should your DPS equal Furie's DPS? No. I understand that templars have some problems. Just stick together figure out the problems, agree on them and come up with the fix(s) and send your suggestions to devs. Stop the "nerf fury" thing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Can't ever remember seeing a Templar ask for furies to be nerfed (except in anger to some Fury trolling our board). You are just being paranoid because currently you are top of the tree and can feel the pressure (we know, we had that mantle before LU13). When SOE gets off their backsides to do something about this they will have the choice of improving 5 classes or nerfing 1 and all you Furies are terrified about them picking option 2 - to the extent you imagine everyone else is calling for nerfs to you. Everyone on the priest class boards does NOT want to see you guys nerfed. You have a fun and well balanced class. We just want to share the fun somehow.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Been getting the feeling that some of the Tree-huggers are a might bit too [Removed for Content] about us getting some dps bump, or even utility, but in support of your good reply Anduri...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I dont get it really. Then again - I dont want to have Fury dps, I want them to throw my extra power the healing way so I can go back to my primary job with others kneeling before me as the primary (along with Inqs, they REALLY should be an evil version with heavy O-buffs I am thinking) healer god that I am. Of course, I want to look good doing it, so lets give my armour and defensive whatnots a good go and set me loose. The rest can have all they have and more to grab that spot in their own way....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Look at it like this: its a point system aye? Right now the Tree-huggers have 10 points. Its good - I am glad for them. I dont want any of their points, even though I only have about 7 of my own. I want 3 more. And I want them in healing/def (personal and buffs). Now look hard - if the totem-lickers what their 3 in dps, or 2 in dps, and one in healing let them have it. We have <EM>some</EM> overall equality, but everyone gets to say they have a wee distinction aye? And everybody can group together and know - if you want certain abilities you go for certain classes of healers. Hell alot of times the type of tank decides that even now aye? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This isnt about cutting druids down to the ground, or even pruning them. I want them to keep all that they have, just like you do I think - it is my good leverage in getting me back to being the best I can be again. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lates.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

stargazer5678

11-25-2005, 11:47 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> stargazer5678 wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>You know, you are right, let's fix things.</DIV> <DIV>1. Replace Templar's reactives with Regens. This is what you guys want, right? All agree?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Obviously not, you are just being silly now.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>2. Give them powerful nukes. Good?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Not necessarily nukes, just some DPS of some kind.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3. Give them SoW and group invis. Happy?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Nope, don't want either really. Just some useful utility, not random lotto proc heals that we cannot cast in time before the mob dies.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>4. Replace plate armor with leather. Not happy? Too bad.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Cant say that would bother me in the slightest. After 5 mins in Ahket Aken I'll have more armour than I'll know what to do with anyway :smileyhappy:</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>5. Take away their defensive buffs and give them offensive buffs. Great, or is it?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Nope, don't want offensive buffs, that's an Inquisitor's job.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So now, we have 2 Fury classes, we can call them Fury A and Fury B or something like that. Hey, let's all get creative here, since we can't be creative when it comes to the actual game..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>May be later some classes decide to follow similar path. Who needs versatility? We just actualy need 4 classes in the game: tank, mage, scout and priest. This way it's all balanced, no more fights and disagreements.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Your sarcasm is mildly funny but in the end you are right. However, it all boils down to the idiocy that is "all classes must heal equally". Because with 6 healing classes without any diversity in healing power, there is no room for diversity in utility and DPS.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Am I twisting it? Is it too much? Probably. Just trying to get my point across. You can't have it all or else the game will change in such a way that you will hate it and quit soon. I truly believe that Templars have no right to claim that Furies get extra healing. Play our class then judge. We do more DPS, this is undeniable and intentional. You want to get more DPS? By all means. Should your DPS equal Furie's DPS? No. I understand that templars have some problems. Just stick together figure out the problems, agree on them and come up with the fix(s) and send your suggestions to devs. Stop the "nerf fury" thing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ccffff>Can't ever remember seeing a Templar ask for furies to be nerfed (except in anger to some Fury trolling our board). You are just being paranoid because currently you are top of the tree and can feel the pressure (we know, we had that mantle before LU13). When SOE gets off their backsides to do something about this they will have the choice of improving 5 classes or nerfing 1 and all you Furies are terrified about them picking option 2 - to the extent you imagine everyone else is calling for nerfs to you. Everyone on the priest class boards does NOT want to see you guys nerfed. You have a fun and well balanced class. We just want to share the fun somehow.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Ok, I am glad to hear that I was wrong about most Templars and that you guys just want your stuff to be fixed. From what I remember there were some Templars and Wardens posting on the furies boards regarding DPS and healing that could be classified as "nerf fury" posts. Glad that I was wrong.</DIV> <DIV>It's just that INSTEAD OF being creative and suggesting new spells/imporved spells you just keep pointing at furies and saying "Look! Theay have this spell and that spell, that's unfair!" That was my main point.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One thing I'd like suggest regarding solo (I am sure I am not the first one, and I am also not suggesting that you shouldn't get more DPS).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I hear templars do noticeably more damage vs. undead. Undead is the most comon NPC in Norrah. I just hope that templars who want to solo take advantage of that. When I started playing on the Isle of refuge I mostly killed Goblins. I didn't kill any undead although there were some (as I know now <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV>Later I started killing Gnolls in The Caves, Antonica, and Black Burrow. I hated Stormhold and didn't really go there much. I only started killing undead in Thundering Steppes. Guess what though. I am "The slayer of undead" now, but not "The slayer of gnolls" or Goblins or anything else. This is just to prove that undead is the most comon NPC.</DIV> <DIV>Now, I don't suggest that as a solution to the templar's DPS problem, but this is rather a temporary solution that can be used.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yastreb, Fury 60, Oasis</DIV>

Nari

11-26-2005, 12:10 AM

That is why we have at least 2 very active suggestion threads. None of them say "Nerf the Fury" but I can post that in there if you wish. It seems that someone went to your section and started a bunch of crap so you have come here to return the favor. Thank you for realizing that most of us aren't out to get you. What purpose would that serve really? With a possibility of a fury being in one of the 24 slots in our raid group, why would we want you to suck? I like that you are trying to help us find some workarounds. I spent a lot of time killing undead in the steppes and the ruins of Varsoon myself, but it is nice to have a little more variety. I think that we have done a pretty good job explaining what it is about our class we wish were different. We may be arguing about particulars here and there, but it should be pretty easy to get a good idea of what we're hoping for. There is a lot of room to work around in within the suggestions that many of us have made. The developers have a pretty good opportunity to really improve things in a creative way. I am betting the last thing they would want would be for us to sit down and redesign the class for them. <div></div>

Dalchar

11-26-2005, 06:10 AM

Know what is funny? I just realized... Furies aren't the only ones with an additional heal on separate timer. Mystics get Torpor on it's own timer. Albeit it functions funky and has restrictions like the fury's does. /smacks forehead. <img src="http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/9822/eq20001013cf.jpg"><div></div>

kenji

11-26-2005, 06:46 AM

<P>stargazer5678... u dont suggest templar ask for more dps, so what should we ask now?</P> <P>soe claimed that every class should heal the same, thats mean we can give up on asking for more heals.</P> <P>soe nerfed templar's buffs from 1500 ac to 500 ac, thats mean we can give up on asking for more defensive buffs.</P> <P>now u ask us to give up on asking for more dps.</P> <P> </P> <P>we are done then. maybe ask for more armor . sounds good! lets make a new post!</P> <DIV>like i said before, Templar is superior only you / group fighting Undead + no-AoE + big Group of mobs + small fast hits.</DIV>

Chog

11-26-2005, 07:35 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote:<BR> <P>If the group ste up is fury friendly sure go with a fury but there are different circumstances where another healer would shine more.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>But that wouldn't be a good xp group then anymore. Fact no. 1: for XP setup, brawler tank is best. Fact no. 2 : fury is by far the best healer for brawler class.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Why state your opinion as facts?</P> <P>Opinion1: Brawlers are not the best tank for an XP set-up for all situations. Against single encounters and no adds, I would agree. Multiple mob encounters or adds, that is stretching the truth very thin.</P> <P>Opinion2: Fury is not the best healer for a Brawler Class. <BR></P>

Timaarit

11-26-2005, 08:50 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Chogar wrote:<p>Opinion1: Brawlers are not the best tank for an XP set-up for all situations. Against single encounters and no adds, I would agree. Multiple mob encounters or adds, that is stretching the truth very thin.</p> <p>Opinion2: Fury is not the best healer for a Brawler Class. </p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>1. Brawlers do wery well against xp add. 2. Oh yes they are <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, <i>especially</i> in xp groups</span><div></div>

Chog

11-26-2005, 09:25 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Chogar wrote: <P>Opinion1: Brawlers are not the best tank for an XP set-up for all situations. Against single encounters and no adds, I would agree. Multiple mob encounters or adds, that is stretching the truth very thin.</P> <P>Opinion2: Fury is not the best healer for a Brawler Class. <BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>1. Brawlers do wery well against xp add.<BR><BR>2. Oh yes they are <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, <I>especially</I> in xp groups<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>1. Again opinion. Brawlers suck at keeping agro from multiple mobs (in the same encounter or seperate).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2. Again Opinion. Brawlers even state Fury's are not the best healer for their tanking style.</DIV>

kenji

11-26-2005, 11:49 AM

<P>opinion 1, the tank able to keep the aggro, and deal most dps = best xp (opinion : Brawler is the Tank class and all tank same good - from SoE, and brawler is the highest dps class in tank classes - from SoE, and the sticky on their board)</P> <P>opinion 2, the healer can keep the group alive as other , and deal most dps = best xp (opinion : Fury is the Priest class, and all priest should keep the group up equally - from SoE, and Fury is the highest dps class in priest classes - from SoE, and every fury knows that)</P> <P>nothing from my thought, i just copy what SoE said, and what their own class thought.</P> <P>Templar class board doesnt have a sticky, because no 1 know what they are good for.. maybe our shiny plate look pwns, but board mod doesnt agree with this.</P> <P>------------</P> <P>and about Proc rate (no matter heals / debuff), ppls should read that actual proc rate is about 1/3 of listed proc rate. go read illusionist post somewhere in the Spell board... they listed it very clear... what we have for real heal buff is a 7% listed 1-hit absorber, and a 5% listed group heal proc caused by melee only.</P> <P>------------</P> <P>my sign soon will be :</P> <P>Lvl 60 Templar -- doesnt have Single Heals / Group Heals / DPS / Utilities than other priests. (cancelled)</P> <P>lol</P><p>Message Edited by kenjiso on <span class=date_text>11-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:06 PM</span>

Chog

11-26-2005, 01:03 PM

<FONT color=#66ff00></FONT><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR> <P>opinion 1, the tank able to keep the aggro, and deal most dps = best xp (opinion : Brawler is the Tank class and all tank same good - from SoE, and brawler is the highest dps class in tank classes - from SoE, and the sticky on their board)</P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>That is your flaw. Brawlers = best single target agro control (from SOE). Warriors = Best Multiple mob agro control (from SOE). If you stick to single ^^^ mobs then yes, the Brawler will be the best. If you take on multiple mobs, the Brawler is no longer the best (For damage or Agro control).</FONT></P> <P>opinion 2, the healer can keep the group alive as other , and deal most dps = best xp (opinion : Fury is the Priest class, and all priest should keep the group up equally - from SoE, and Fury is the highest dps class in priest classes - from SoE, and every fury knows that)</P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>Correct, every Priest should be able to keep a group alive. Being able to DPS and keep a group alive is a differnt story (please tell me where SOE stated healers can go all out on DPS and still keep a group alive as the sole healer against level appropriate content).</FONT></P> <P>nothing from my thought, i just copy what SoE said, and what their own class thought.</P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>Would not use the word "Copy." Twisted the words to your liking may be a better fit.</FONT></P> <P>Templar class board doesnt have a sticky, because no 1 know what they are good for.. maybe our shiny plate look pwns, but board mod doesnt agree with this.</P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>??? Does not have a sticky? What do you call the thing at the top of the board with the name Sticky next to it then?</FONT></P> <P>------------</P> <P>and about Proc rate (no matter heals / debuff), ppls should read that actual proc rate is about 1/3 of listed proc rate. go read illusionist post somewhere in the Spell board... they listed it very clear... what we have for real heal buff is a 7% listed 1-hit absorber, and a 5% listed group heal proc caused by melee only.</P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>Proc rates are averaged out from 3 seconds. This allows a 2-hander to compete with Dual Wields for Proccing. There is a formula floating around that the Devs gave out a while back.</FONT></P> <P>------------</P> <P>my sign soon will be :</P> <P>Lvl 60 Templar -- doesnt have Single Heals / Group Heals / DPS / Utilities than other priests. (cancelled)</P> <P>lol</P> <P>Message Edited by kenjiso on <SPAN class=date_text>11-25-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:06 PM</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text><FONT color=#66ff00>Not into the entire sig then. Maybe...</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text><FONT color=#66ff00>Lvl: 60 Inquisitor The never mentioned. (active)</FONT></SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Timaarit

11-26-2005, 08:54 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Chogar wrote: <div>1. Again opinion. Brawlers suck at keeping agro from multiple mobs (in the same encounter or seperate).</div> <div> </div> <div>2. Again Opinion. Brawlers even state Fury's are not the best healer for their tanking style.</div><hr></blockquote>1. Funny, my monk has no problems with multiple mobs in same encounter. And not many with multiple encounters either. I guess it is more about the group then that about a single class. Fact is that in xp group, all that matters is DPS. Thus brawlers are the best tanks for xp groups. 2. Fury is the best for monk at least. Well, maybe warden could be better, but HoT's are a must when tank has large amoun of stuns in use. But for xp group, fury is the no. 1 choise.</span><div></div>

Timaarit

11-26-2005, 09:00 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Chogar wrote:<font color="#66ff00"></font> <blockquote> <hr> kenjiso wrote: <div></div><p>opinion 2, the healer can keep the group alive as other , and deal most dps = best xp (opinion : Fury is the Priest class, and all priest should keep the group up equally - from SoE, and Fury is the highest dps class in priest classes - from SoE, and every fury knows that)</p> <p><font color="#66ff00">Correct, every Priest should be able to keep a group alive. Being able to DPS and keep a group alive is a differnt story (please tell me where SOE stated healers can go all out on DPS and still keep a group alive as the sole healer against level appropriate content).</font></p></blockquote> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Now this is what bothers me. Why is it so? Why can a fury keep every tank alive with near equal ease, but clerics especially have huge dificulties with avoidance tanks? IMO they should pair the tanks so that highest DPS healer can heal lowest DPS tank and vice versa. Thus pairs would be close to Druid - Warrior, Shaman - Crusader and Cleric - Brawler. As it is, lowest dps healer is good at healing lowest dps tank also and highest dps healer is the best to heal highest dps tank. Note that the highest dps healer is equally good across the board when it comes to healing. So in fact it is just not the healers that are imbalanced, it is the whole grouping system. Clearly all classes are not equal even when it comes to the core of the game - grouping, let alone soloing.</span><div></div>

Quijonsith

11-26-2005, 09:41 PM

<div></div>1: My monk has no problem holding aggro on multiple targets. Just gotta cycle through them and have the group stay on one mob at a time (or let the mages aoe, which still hasn't pulled off me). Dragon Advance is wonderful. 2: With my 53 Templar I've preffered brawlers over plate tanks in alot of situations. I have absolutely no problem keeping them alive. (ESP with GoC Adept 3 helping) 3: Who can heal who is entirely situational and depends on the player's strategy and skill. Edit: On my monk I've enjoyed having a warden healing me more than anyone, but maybe it was just the player. I've had Inquisitors do a wonderful job aswell. I've only had a mystic healing me once and it was kinda scary when the ward got blown through and all the mystic had was her relatively weak direct heals (relative to templar). <div></div><p>Message Edited by Quijonsith on <span class=date_text>11-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:44 AM</span>

Chog

11-27-2005, 06:40 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Chogar wrote:<BR> <DIV>1. Again opinion. Brawlers suck at keeping agro from multiple mobs (in the same encounter or seperate).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2. Again Opinion. Brawlers even state Fury's are not the best healer for their tanking style.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>1. Funny, my monk has no problems with multiple mobs in same encounter. And not many with multiple encounters either. I guess it is more about the group then that about a single class. Fact is that in xp group, all that matters is DPS. Thus brawlers are the best tanks for xp groups.<BR><BR>2. Fury is the best for monk at least. Well, maybe warden could be better, but HoT's are a must when tank has large amoun of stuns in use. But for xp group, fury is the no. 1 choise.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Like I said, oppinion. You labeld them as a fact when they are your oppinion. In your eyes Brawlers and Furys make the best "base" of an exp grind group. You say it is a fact, I say it is your oppinion. <BR>

Timaarit

11-27-2005, 01:03 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Chogar wrote:Like I said, oppinion. You labeld them as a fact when they are your oppinion. In your eyes Brawlers and Furys make the best "base" of an exp grind group. You say it is a fact, I say it is your oppinion. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Not really. It can be even proven mathematically. So it is not an opinion <span>:smileywink:</span></span><div></div>

Chog

11-27-2005, 01:45 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Chogar wrote:<BR>Like I said, oppinion. You labeld them as a fact when they are your oppinion. In your eyes Brawlers and Furys make the best "base" of an exp grind group. You say it is a fact, I say it is your oppinion. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Not really. It can be even proven mathematically. So it is not an opinion <SPAN>:smileywink:</SPAN><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Then prove it mathmaticly. Bruiser + Fury does not equal the best base for an exp grind in all situations. I am not arguing that Furys have higher DPS then other healers. I am not arguing that Brusiers have the highest single target damage against other fighters. What I am saying the "best" group is situational, an opinion, and relies more upon skill then numbers.

Timaarit

11-27-2005, 07:36 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Chogar wrote: Then prove it mathmaticly. Bruiser + Fury does not equal the best base for an exp grind in all situations. I am not arguing that Furys have higher DPS then other healers. I am not arguing that Brusiers have the highest single target damage against other fighters. What I am saying the "best" group is situational, an opinion, and relies more upon skill then numbers.<hr></blockquote>Ah, 'skill'... So you want to compare player A with brawer and no skill to player B with another fighter and who also can play. No. With generic player X (skill or no skill), brawler is the best for XP. Same goes for fury. Of course skill comes to view when you compare different players. But with a certain player, if they can play one class, they can learn another just as well. So skill comes to view when you are comparing fighter A played by B to fighter X played by Y. If you compare fighter A to fighter B played by the same person, skill has nothing to do with it. Not if they have played the character to high levels themselves.</span><div></div>

Takeo1

11-28-2005, 02:13 AM

<P> </P> <P>I AM THE BEST HEALER! I AM!</P> <P> </P> <P>-ahem</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Anyways, I can see the lads points about this Bruiser + Fury = the DPS and Healing Combo. See, if the Brusier has good avoid, he is gonna get good benefits outta that Fury HoT set. Not to mention those buffs, they do have a few O-Buff now dont they? So while those HoTs are sounding off, and the Bruiser is dodging to and fro, the Fury can land some....shall we say decent?...nukes to assist in the kills. The Bruiser I am thinking has good dps all by his onesies, at least compared to other tankers. Thats alot of dps I am thinking, with a solid healer/tank match. Seems like you would have to be fairly poor in skills to fail with that...</P> <P> </P> <P>But on topic of skill, it isnt like this game is like the original in that respect. With the loss of alot of the class distinctions have gone the loss of alot of the chance for a player to...rise above. Being realistic, it isnt that hard to push these buttons nowdays, the linkage made the choices even easier. Long casters in short fights? No. Lotto in short fight? No. Not unless its a buff aye? Bah - its not really a thinking man's game now is it? Be serious. Even with the parses, and with all respect to those who spend the time to do these parses, it isnt like even against the harder mobs, you can figure a strat in a go or three. Healing now reminds me alot of the Chains in EQ. </P> <P> </P> <P>I remember why I preferred me Bard. Alot of twisting before the /song patch. Could distinguish yourself with pulls, in combat CC, bouncing aggro with group DA...and this game was headed that way at one time. But to say now that it depends alot on skill....just how many buttons do you push and how many targets do you have in a group or raid? </P> <P> </P> <P>Lets face it all, skill has a hell of alot less to do with this game than class. And I am not just talking about character class.</P> <P> </P> <P>Lates.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

Chog

11-28-2005, 04:54 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Timaarit wrote:</P> <P><SPAN>Ah, 'skill'... So you want to compare player A with brawer and no skill to player B with another fighter and who also can play.<BR><BR>No. With generic player X (skill or no skill), brawler is the best for XP. Same goes for fury.<BR><BR>Of course skill comes to view when you compare different players. But with a certain player, if they can play one class, they can learn another just as well. So skill comes to view when you are comparing fighter A played by B to fighter X played by Y. If you compare fighter A to fighter B played by the same person, skill has nothing to do with it. Not if they have played the character to high levels themselves.<BR></P></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Like I said an opinion not fact. Even with every factor being equal (Skill / items / etc) the situation will ditact what class combination is the best at that time. Your opinion is Fury + Bruiser = end all be all of an exp grind group. My opinion differs.<BR>

Timaarit

11-28-2005, 05:44 PM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Chogar wrote:<div></div> Like I said an opinion not fact. Even with every factor being equal (Skill / items / etc) the situation will ditact what class combination is the best at that time. Your opinion is Fury + Bruiser = end all be all of an exp grind group. My opinion differs. <div></div><hr></blockquote>All right, lets hear from you what you think is the best duo combination for xp. And why. Also what is the best tank + healer combination for xp group. And why.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class=date_text>11-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:45 PM</span>

quetzaqotl

11-28-2005, 05:47 PM

<P>Hmm tim he's saying theres no "best" it all depends on the player behind the keyboard and how well geared the player is.</P> <P>Talking about the best is speculation its like comparing who's stronger the hulk or superman.</P> <P>Ah well some kids love to do that too I guess.</P> <p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>11-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:48 AM</span>

Timaarit

11-28-2005, 06:01 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>quetzaqotl wrote:<div></div> <p>Hmm tim he's saying theres no "best" it all depends on the player behind the keyboard and how well geared the player is.</p> <p>Talking about the best is speculation its like comparing who's stronger the hulk or superman.</p> <p>Ah well some kids love to do that too I guess.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>And I am saying that the player only depends when you look at two different players playing the same class. But when you compare two different classes played by the same player, the class does mean a lot. And comparing two different classes with two different players does not tell anything to someone who is actually picking up a class to play. For example our guilds new fury is already as good healer as he was when he played inquisitor. I am as good tank as a healer I used to be. I have no doubts that you couldn't be as good mage as you are a fury now. So comparing two people playing different toons gives no information about anything. On the other hand, objectively comparing classes without argument 'it depends on who is playing' does. Of course a person who has played a paladin to lvl 60 is better for XP group than someone who just bought his lvl 60 brawler. But had he bought lvl 60 paladin, the latter would be even worse. </span><div></div>

stargazer5678

11-28-2005, 06:24 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> quetzaqotl wrote:<BR> <P>Hmm tim he's saying theres no "best" it all depends on the player behind the keyboard and how well geared the player is.</P> <P>Talking about the best is speculation its like comparing who's stronger the hulk or superman.</P> <P>Ah well some kids love to do that too I guess.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>And I am saying that the player only depends when you look at two different players playing the same class. But when you compare two different classes played by the same player, the class does mean a lot. And comparing two different classes with two different players does not tell anything to someone who is actually picking up a class to play. <BR><BR>For example our guilds new fury is already as good healer as he was when he played inquisitor. I am as good tank as a healer I used to be. I have no doubts that you couldn't be as good mage as you are a fury now. So comparing two people playing different toons gives no information about anything. On the other hand, objectively comparing classes without argument 'it depends on who is playing' does. Of course a person who has played a paladin to lvl 60 is better for XP group than someone who just bought his lvl 60 brawler. But had he bought lvl 60 paladin, the latter would be even worse.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>All right. I grouped a lot with Monks and Bruisers. My opinion is that they can be very good tanks, but then again, you guessed it, it's SITUATIONAL. I totally agree that they are the best against single target, and I also totally agree that they are not the best against grouped mobs!. I actually talked about this issue with 3 or 4 Monks about couple of weeks ago. They all confirmed that it's a challenge to keep aggro when engaging a grouped target. Not that it's impossible, mind you, but challenging. So, in many cases healers have to switch between different group members healing them. Ideal XP group you say? Not always. This is my opinion, I don't claim anything.</DIV> <DIV>This game is so diverse I would be suprised if there was a perfect XP group for all cases.. It just depends on so many factors. Again, not saying templars shouldn't get more DPS, just expressing my opinion about "best XP group".</DIV>

Big Da

11-28-2005, 06:59 PM

<DIV>Brigand + Templar <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

Quijonsith

11-28-2005, 09:10 PM

I think the point trying to be made is that for duoing (not grouping which is 3+) a bruiser and a fury would make the highest DPS duo while still having a healer and actual tank, and the higher the dps the faster mobs die. the faster mobs die the faster you gain XP. Anyone have any opinions on a necro or conjuror pet tanking with a fury healer compaired to this? There could also be alot said for a wizard and a fury if the roots hold. <div></div>

Chog

12-01-2005, 04:46 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR> <SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Chogar wrote:<BR> <BR>Like I said an opinion not fact. Even with every factor being equal (Skill / items / etc) the situation will ditact what class combination is the best at that time. Your opinion is Fury + Bruiser = end all be all of an exp grind group. My opinion differs.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>All right, lets hear from you what you think is the best duo combination for xp. And why.<BR><BR>Also what is the best tank + healer combination for xp group. And why.<BR></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Timaarit on <SPAN class=date_text>11-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:45 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>There is no "best" combo for an experience group. The "best" depends on the situation. Fighting groups or single? Fighting casters or melee? Dungeon crawl or outdoor? What other classes in the group? Fighting encounters higher or lower level? Anytime you change one of the variables the "best" option is changed as well.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anybody who states what is the "best" combo, is stating an opinion not a fact.</DIV>

Dalchar

12-01-2005, 05:21 AM

<DIV>It really is at least partly opinion. From a shear dps perspective on the two required fighter and priest classes, the two classes may bring additional speed. However, if the speed is already high (wiz/warlock + troub kinda thing) it may not speed things up my much at all... I don't always have time to land a nuke at all (start HOT, use direct heals, makes sure tank is stable enough to allow 4s to cast the big nuke, etc), and if it's an avoidance tank, the damage shield isn't doing much... Brawler tanks (in my expereince) are generally tougher to heal, I nearly have a heart attack more than on other tanks anyway... small heals on big spikes make your eyes bulge at times /giggle.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It may come down to more of a matter of...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fast + safer or Faster w/ potential recovery if things go fowl. Avoidance I imagine will only get you so far if you're in a situation with 2,3,4+ encounters, depending on where you are, eventually that avoidance tank has a good chance of getting smacked hard 2-3x at once which could be disaster. With plate tanks there's a lot less to worry about and you can go and intentionally pull several encounters at once w/o breaking much of a sweat... so which was faster... 2-3 encounters at once with good speed thanks to the new AOEs out there, or killing single encounters slightly faster? At the same time, you're often limited to a certain amount of spawns... if you both group setups kill fast enough to be head on spawntimes... neither is faster than the other.... thinking of certain places in POF mainly...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Timaarit

12-01-2005, 01:28 PM

Well when I am XPing with my monk and have a fury in group, the fury rarely heals me while we fight. After the combat, he casts a HoT and I'm off to pull another mob. My strat is to stun and stifle the mob for as long as possible. Total time is 8s with stuns and 0-10s with stifle when the mob cannot use any combat arts. If we have enough DPS, that is enough so that I dont take much damage. I also rarely lose aggro (even though I am a monk <span>:smileytongue:</span>) so the DPS members can do what they came in to do. Even multiple targets are very much doable. <div></div>

Quijonsith

12-02-2005, 12:16 PM

I play the exact same way tim. If anyone has trouble healing a monk the monk's not playing the right strategy. Healing a monk has almost as much to do with the monk's skill as it does with the healer's skill. If we start fighting mobs that hit slightly harder or I see my HP lagging a lil more than usual I'll use my mitigation buff that roots me, not to mention my own healing spell that has a 3min recast. I'll say this much. On my templar I've enjoyed having good brawlers tank more than my guild's plate tanks, who are also good tanks. Though I find my templar to be VERY versitile and adaptable to different situations with all the healing utility I get. <div></div>

Timaarit

12-02-2005, 01:05 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Quijonsith wrote:I play the exact same way tim. If anyone has trouble healing a monk the monk's not playing the right strategy. Healing a monk has almost as much to do with the monk's skill as it does with the healer's skill. If we start fighting mobs that hit slightly harder or I see my HP lagging a lil more than usual I'll use my mitigation buff that roots me, not to mention my own healing spell that has a 3min recast. I'll say this much. On my templar I've enjoyed having good brawlers tank more than my guild's plate tanks, who are also good tanks. Though I find my templar to be VERY versitile and adaptable to different situations with all the healing utility I get. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Yes. A cleric needs to precast both reactives before an avoidance tank pulls, same as some other healers need to precast wards. Druids don't need to precast anything, they can wait for damage and nuke, and when the tank starts stunning, they can start healing. Though by precasting, a cleric can then debuff and nuke while reactives are consumed. Even as an avoidance tank, I rarely get hit so hard that the combuned reactives couldn't keep up. Generally even the single target reactive can keep up alone. It is just the time when reactive is recast that will require extra casting from a cleric. </span><div></div>

Kendricke

12-02-2005, 07:43 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN>Yes. A cleric needs to precast both reactives before an avoidance tank pulls, same as some other healers need to precast wards. <BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I would say that's one perspective.</P> <P>Another would be that I just grouped this past week with a 54 monk leading the charge every night (with anywhere from 3-4 additional melee in the group), and in most cases, I didn't even need to precast (only on named). Especially with the new aggression rules from Update 17, I'm simply not worried about nabbing hate on pull, nor do I feel required to pre-cast my heals.</P> <P>If I have close to full power, or I have the time, or if we're about to engage a significantly more challenging foe, then yes, I'll precast. Otherwise, I'm not personally going to slow down pulls just for pre-casting. We had absolutely no problems with dying, either...and I was typically the only healer. Others may experience different results.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P>

Nari

12-02-2005, 08:07 PM

*nods* My different result is that I don't have Glory of Combat yet. I don't make people wait for me to precast, but as soon as I percieve anyone in my group making any hostile moves, I start casting the reactives. It seems to work OK for me. <div></div>

Quijonsith

12-03-2005, 01:32 AM

I pretty much use my reactives the same way as 3devious. <div></div>

kenji

12-03-2005, 06:06 AM

<P>i think Tim want to say is... a good Monk can Stun and Stifle the mob for 8 and 10ish sec...while reactive not going to heal while the monk stun it... and if Templar cast stun after Monk...there is a 15 sec that no reactive ticking... how u gonna play with reactive while there is no hits? /grin</P>

Quijonsith

12-03-2005, 06:25 AM

<div></div><div></div>That's where the Mark of Pawns line, and post lvl 47 Glory of Combat, have always come into play for me both before and after LU13. I don't direct heals monks unless they have <50% hp because these spells do it for me. As much as monks attack with all that haste it works out nicely. LIke I said, with all of our healing utility templars can adapt to almost any situation when all of those so called "useless" spells are used properly. I mentioned that stunning is a good strategy (and one i use on my monk) for druids to have time to heal me, and it also gives time for templars afore mentioned utility to heal me as well. I also save alot of mana by using pacify on secondary mobs (ones not attacked by the MT) and stun so that the MT isn't getting hit in the first place by those mobs. This saves me ALOT of mana, which is nice to be able to do since our direct heals are the largest and most power using. At level 53 my pacify lasts 16 sec. Long time to not get hit by a mob longs as it's not taking damage. If we have a lot of mobs and some aoe users then Atoning Fate is beautifully handy. Reactives are, by no means, our only way of healing. It is mearly our core healing. The utility may be random, but even so I've found them to be reliable enough. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Quijonsith on <span class="date_text">12-02-2005</span> <span class="time_text">05:29 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Quijonsith on <span class=date_text>12-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:29 PM</span>

Aleph

12-03-2005, 06:50 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR> <P>i think Tim want to say is... a good Monk can Stun and Stifle the mob for 8 and 10ish sec...while reactive not going to heal while the monk stun it... and if Templar cast stun after Monk...there is a 15 sec that no reactive ticking... how u gonna play with reactive while there is no hits? /grin</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Precast a reactive, cast MoK, coordinate stuns, and keep GoC up. You might finish the fight without casting any more heals at all, leaving you free to debuff, nuke, and dot as much as you want. If need be, direct heal to supplement your reactive buffer and your utilities. Coordinating stuns, you can keep the mob out of action almost half the time. The reactive will still be there once the stuns expire. A mob not hitting your tank is not a bad thing; just keep the reactives up for when you need them. If you don't need them, everybody wins but the mob.</P> <P> </P> <P><EM>--Looks like quijonsith beat me to it. The force is strong in that one.--</EM></P><p>Message Edited by Alephin on <span class=date_text>12-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:55 PM</span>

kenji

12-03-2005, 06:58 AM

<P>a fury cast dot at start, cast a regen when the monk hurt, nuke till monk <50%, 10 ratio BITF</P> <P>doesnt seems we are better than them? and the fury can easily out dmg templar but also keep the monk up?</P>

Kendricke

12-03-2005, 07:04 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR> <P>a fury cast dot at start, cast a regen when the monk hurt, nuke till monk <50%, 10 ratio BITF</P> <P>doesnt seems we are better than them? and the fury can easily out dmg templar but also keep the monk up?<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If I have time to cast nukes, then my group is going too slow. That's the rule of thumb I tend to live by.</P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P>

Quijonsith

12-03-2005, 07:05 AM

Better is all in perception. Better depends on the player, not the class. I'll throw in basically what I tell new priests when they ask me for advice when choosing a healing class. Utility, dps, and the perception of "who is best" change all the time and aren't things to base the decision on. It's all about the style you want to heal with. ALL have their advantages and disadvantages. You must choose your priest based on the style with which you want to heal. Advantages: Regens are reliable, steady healing. Good adaptable heal for most if not all situations. Reactives go off as the damage is taken. Great for spikes of hits. Wards have set amounts that they can absorb but prevent the damage it absorbs from getting to the player. Disadvantages: If there is a long series of spikes regens can lag behind. If a single hit does more damage than a reactive tick heals, it doesn't heal again until the next hit. If damage breaks through a ward before another one is cast, then the shaman must use other lines of heals to replace the lost HP because the ward is just a shield. You can't have the best of all 3 classes. You must choose the style that fits you. I love reactives because the fights that are good for them are exciting. My druid friends like their reliable, steady healing. A shaman friend told me he likes wards cause it's like he's putting up a force field. If one can sit here and down play his/her own spells and insist that someone else's are immensly better, than to me (s)he didn't pick the healing that fits his/her style. Edit: I love my templar because all of our healing utility makes us very adaptable. A good healer is one who can use the spells (s)h'es given to adapt to as many different situations as possible. <div></div>

Quijonsith

12-03-2005, 07:06 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>kenjiso wrote:<p>a fury cast dot at start, cast a regen when the monk hurt, nuke till monk <50%, 10 ratio BITF</p> <p>doesnt seems we are better than them? and the fury can easily out dmg templar but also keep the monk up?</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>I know plenty of druids that precast a regen JIK of early damage, which happens even with monks. They don't necessarily lad off with a DoT, esp with plenty of other DPS in the group, but yes they have that option. Too much class envy = you picked the wrong class.</span><div></div>

kenji

12-03-2005, 07:21 AM

<DIV>i still dont get it. but i am getting close.</DIV> <DIV>1) we are better healer but all healers (by Kend) but all healers can keep the group alive as well as us. (balanced)</DIV> <DIV>2) we are better defensive (by Furygod) but same amount of buffs similar to offensive priest. (balanced)</DIV> <DIV>3) we are no dps compare to druid. (balanced!?)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>class envy n picked wrong class, personally i didnt plan to pick a same heal balanced class w/o DPS. it was changed at LU13. before i am superior healer w/o DPS.</DIV>

Kendricke

12-03-2005, 07:29 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR> <DIV>i still dont get it. but i am getting close.</DIV> <DIV>1) we are better healer but all healers (by Kend) but all healers can keep the group alive as well as us. (balanced)</DIV> <DIV>2) we are better defensive (by Furygod) but same amount of buffs similar to offensive priest. (balanced)</DIV> <DIV>3) we are no dps compare to druid. (balanced!?)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>class envy n picked wrong class, personally i didnt plan to pick a same heal balanced class w/o DPS. it was changed at LU13. before i am superior healer w/o DPS.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>That's not quite what I've said. To clarify, I feel that in a general, everyday, typical, run-of-the-mill situation...any class'll do ya. If you just need healing, but not HEALING, then any priest will do. If you're just fighting general heroics with a bit of downtime between pulls, then it doesn't matter who you grab to heal with.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, if you're going flat out, taking on pull after multipull; or you're hunting for named; or you're looking for a bit more of a challenge than the hum drum everyday "grind", then personally I prefer the Templar as the best all around healer in more situations. We not only heal great with just direct and reactive heals...but our added healing utility adds in to bring us heads and shoulders above other healers. Make the group tailored around melee instead of magic and suddenly you're increasing the group's abilities dramatically more.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Quijonsith

12-03-2005, 07:30 AM

When I said "To much class envy" I was only referring to healing. I totally agree that in the other areas that encompass priests we are severely imblanced, however I feel that choosing a priest based on anything except how they heal is rediculous because this is all subject to change. The amounts, too, are subject to change, but I doubt they would change the nature of reactives, wards, and regens. <div></div>

kenji

12-03-2005, 07:35 AM

<DIV>the difference with small grp (duo or 3), fighting 1 min non stop , and fighting 30 sec and rest 30 sec is huge difference, less stress, maybe pick some drink, any RL stuff.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>why play a prist class that require to fight a min but not 30 sec? its not healthy to fight 1x60 mins nonstop and stressful.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>just my 2cp</DIV>

Quijonsith

12-03-2005, 11:52 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>kenjiso wrote:<div>the difference with small grp (duo or 3), fighting 1 min non stop , and fighting 30 sec and rest 30 sec is huge difference, less stress, maybe pick some drink, any RL stuff.</div> <div> </div> <div>why play a prist class that require to fight a min but not 30 sec? its not healthy to fight 1x60 mins nonstop and stressful.</div> <div> </div> <div>just my 2cp</div><hr></blockquote> I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're trying to say here kenjiso. Is this a comment on priest DPS? That if the priest you choose has more DPS then the fights are faster and you can rest? I see no reason why one should fight nonstop if they don't want to, no matter how long the fight is. Fight for 1 min and rest for 30 sec if you need to. Personally I like chain pulling and non stop fighting, with the occasional break <u>where needed</u>. I like the excitement of chain pulling and constant fighting. It's why I play a templar as a healer. Reactives allow me to heal in multi-pull situations nicely.</span><div></div>

Gcha

12-03-2005, 12:12 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <DIV>However, if you're going flat out, taking on pull after multipull; or you're hunting for named; or you're looking for a bit more of a challenge than the hum drum everyday "grind", then personally I prefer the Templar as the best all around healer in more situations. We not only heal great with just direct and reactive heals...but our added healing utility adds in to bring us heads and shoulders above other healers. </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Nobody can do the Bongo Straits anymore without a Templar !<BR>

Timaarit

12-03-2005, 01:23 PM

<span><blockquote>Kendricke wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> kenjiso wrote: <p>a fury cast dot at start, cast a regen when the monk hurt, nuke till monk <50%, 10 ratio BITF</p> <p>doesnt seems we are better than them? and the fury can easily out dmg templar but also keep the monk up?</p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>If I have time to cast nukes, then my group is going too slow. That's the rule of thumb I tend to live by. </p><div></div><hr></blockquote>Interesting, my observation is that if the healer actually needs to heal while we fight, then we are going too slow or need to coordinate the stuns better.</span><div></div>

kenji

12-03-2005, 01:42 PM

<P>imo...even Kend u smite cos of group dps low... the group dps wont go up by 10%... templar isnt giving any DPS. face it... </P> <P>but as a druid, u have choice to keep focus on healing group like a templar (or 90% of a templar), or u can donate DPS with nukes... u know Fury doing 2-3 times to Templar DPS i guess.</P> <P>Balance</P>

Elro

12-03-2005, 02:24 PM

<DIV>Would have loved to see the beta line spell for us go live. Special, beleive it was 58. It was a Tombstone that had a pulsing to it. Pure / True AoE Dmg. Would have been nice to see. Another thought for adding to our dmg a bit is increasing our undead lines. Yes, the multiplier is nice for our undead line of being able to double our dmg, but still the vary on it is too large and the recast sucks. Bump up the undead Dmg and I would be ok with that. Guaranteed for regular mobs we would be back to the old Ho Nuke, Stun, Nuke. But, something would be better than nothing =).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Or... lol... We could bring back Joboneker from EQ1. Hammer pet FTW. Or maybe... bring back the self only hammer summon for when you need to meelee. If your gear is half way worth a damm you can easily get to 3k mit. Hell im in chain BP / Leggings and Im at 3100 buffed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just a couple thoughts. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><IMG src="http://eq2.ataxiareign.com/eq2/datas/users/16-elrohnsig2.jpg"></DIV>

Kendricke

12-03-2005, 09:05 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR> <P>imo...even Kend u smite cos of group dps low... the group dps wont go up by 10%... templar isnt giving any DPS. face it...</P> <P>but as a druid, u have choice to keep focus on healing group like a templar (or 90% of a templar), or u can donate DPS with nukes... u know Fury doing 2-3 times to Templar DPS i guess.</P> <P>Balance<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's an interesting opinion...but I've always been a fan of Adam Smith style grouping myself. In Wealth of Nations (Book I, Chapter I), Smith goes on to outline the most basic principle of modern capitalism: specialization. Five people performing each of five different steps to create a widget will never be able to create widgets as effeciently as five people each performing the same task in the process over and over.</P> <P>In a group setting, I almost never cast a damage spell since there are others in the group who can perform the same job better. Even Furies should not be considered as front line DPS - if so, the group wasn't formed with efficiency in mind (according to How i personally read basic Smith principles). My job is healing and support - not front line damage. If I'm not healing or performing secondary duties, then I'm simply not (in my mind) performing my role to the best of my abilities. By my way of thinking, I'm trying to be something I'm not - a damage class.</P> <P>This is why I tend to gravitate to melee heavy groups - so that I might make the most of my strengths while downplaying my weaknesses. I tend to encourage heavier pull tactics (multipulls; chain pulls; etc), whild at the same time encouraging more challenging content. Frankly, I don't have all that much time to spend on actual gaming typically with my other responsibilities, so I try to make the most of what I can - for myself and for those I group with. This means that I don't feel soloing is productive for myself, nor do I find slower "grind groups" to my liking. Honestly, now that death mechanics have been lessened again, I wonder why more Templars aren't pushing for harder challenges in their groups to make the most of our strengths.</P> <P>In those melee heavy groups I mentioned, one cast of Admonishment (Rebuke line) can increase overall group DPS significantly. I've personally parsed out consistent increases on the order of 10-25% or more in DPS increases. That's the difference between 1200 DPS and 1500 DPS for a small melee intensive group. I point this out to guild members and even pick-up group members and encourage them to pull their own parses just to show them the difference. Obviously, it's easy to see big numbers caused by direct line damage spells, but effectiveness is effectiveness, and I've turned more than a few heads when the numbers are seen. It's hard to argue with a guy when you can parse the numbers yourself and see an immediate difference (try it yourself next time - pile on 4-5 melee in your groups, and cast Admonishment on every other pull to see for yourself).</P> <P>You may not think an increase of 200-400 DPS is a big deal. I sure do...as do most folks I group with.</P> <P> </P>

Timaarit

12-03-2005, 09:35 PM

<span><blockquote>Kendricke wrote: <p>That's an interesting opinion...but I've always been a fan of Adam Smith style grouping myself. In Wealth of Nations (Book I, Chapter I), Smith goes on to outline the most basic principle of modern capitalism: specialization. Five people performing each of five different steps to create a widget will never be able to create widgets as effeciently as five people each performing the same task in the process over and over.</p><div></div><hr></blockquote>The problem is that templars aren't specialized into anything. Every other healing class heals as well as we do, so there is no specialization. But we do lack the variety other healers have. But that is not called specialization, it is called being impaired.</span><div></div>

Kendricke

12-03-2005, 10:55 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE>Kendricke wrote: <P>That's an interesting opinion...but I've always been a fan of Adam Smith style grouping myself. In Wealth of Nations (Book I, Chapter I), Smith goes on to outline the most basic principle of modern capitalism: specialization. Five people performing each of five different steps to create a widget will never be able to create widgets as effeciently as five people each performing the same task in the process over and over.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>The problem is that templars aren't specialized into anything. Every other healing class heals as well as we do, so there is no specialization. But we do lack the variety other healers have. But that is not called specialization, it is called being impaired.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>That's your opinion on the subject, yes. My opinion differs greatly. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm an incredible healer in most situations that I place myself in. I consider my abilities as tools that are very useful for the right circumstances. No, you don't require a nailgun to put up a poster...any old hammer will do. However, if you're putting together the framing for a house...you're going to want something a bit more powerful than any old hammer (even though it <EM>can</EM> get the job done).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you, as a Templar, are placing yourself and your group in "any old grouping situation", then my question would be "why"? Find the situations that work toward your strengths, not your weaknesses, and work from that. I don't see myself as "just a priest". I'm a Templar, and I heal. I heal in situations that other priests might or would have difficulty in. I do this because I recognize that we have certain strengths.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You apparantly disagree. That's fine if you feel that way. However, back up those claims or risk having those claims ignored by the folks who really know the difference - the developers. That's just plain common sense, in my opinion. If you say that "all healers heal the same" and if the developers feel differently based on their design and numbers, who are you going to convince? Just because an anonymous player on the message board says one thing, they're going to alter the design? Of course not. They might look at the design with enough opinions raised...but overall, the design's based firmly on numbers. If you can't prove the numbers to back the claims, then you'd best hope your guess is on the money. If it's not, then you're simply tilting at windmills.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'll freely admit I could be wrong. However, I'm going to guess that the recognition I've been afforded to this point is at least a small indiciation that I'm often able to back my opinions enough to gain the attention where it counts. You can ignore that, or you can try to learn from it. You want changes...work within the system. If you want to just complain, then by all means, vent all you wish here. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Either way, I'm working toward changes I feel are important and I'm doing it in the way I feel will work. You're apparantly doing the same. Only time will tell which approach is correct.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Timaarit

12-04-2005, 05:12 AM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:That's your opinion on the subject, yes. My opinion differs greatly. <div> </div> <div>I'm an incredible healer in most situations that I place myself in. I consider my abilities as tools that are very useful for the right circumstances.</div> <hr></blockquote>That is </span><span>your opinion on the subject, yes. And what I have seen, you are almost alone with it. Yes, there are some who think like you, but you are a small minority. Every priest have very useful abilities in the right circumstances. But unlike templars, they can utilize most of their abilities even in normal circumstances, they dont need any 'right' circumstances to be great healers. I wrote this before: A tier 6 furys basic healing power is equivalent to what a templar can bring up in those 'right' circumstances. If the circumstances aren't 'right', fury will still heal like before, but templars lose even 50% of their healing power. And this has nothing to do with opinions, it is pure math and you have read the facts (and stayed silent). Oh, and BTW, you are right, healers dont heal the same. Templars are not the best healers in any situation exept one. This is when the fight lasts for about 3s and mt is hit for total of 2x the damage that templar reactives can heal combined. In those cases, templars truly are the only ones who can keep mt alive. If the fight lasts for 4s, oops, mt dies... Now if you think differently, why dont you prove it? You know how reactives, wards and HoT's work. Now present a situation where templar is the best healer. The math is really easy to do if you know as much as you claim. And then tell me where that kind of encouter is. </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class=date_text>12-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:18 AM</span>

Kendricke

12-04-2005, 06:14 AM

<P>Timaarit, </P> <P>If I was the only person who believed as I do, how is that proof that I am wrong? What if the developers agreed with that "small minority"? Obviously if numbers were an indicator of what is "right", then World of Warcraft, or Lineage should be where you should be playing, right? So why play a game with a fraction of the playerbase? Are you wrong for playing a less popular game?</P> <P>Popularity does not equate to correctness. It's actually fallacy to use that as a supporting statement...and for good reason. </P> <P>I'm glad you hold an opinion you feel is correct. I'm glad you feel that your opinion is well supported. I feel similarly about my opinion on the subject. Good luck on pushing through the changes you feel are correct using the methods you feel are correct. I'm sure that you're doing what you feel is right regarding that.</P> <P> </P>

Timaarit

12-04-2005, 01:00 PM

Kend, believe as you will. But do not come here and comment on semantics thus trying to prove someone wrong. If you want to prove us wrong, do so with facts. So far you have provided none. Parses are useless unless you yorself play all the classes in question. So mathematics in the heals will do for now. So prove your point. I have proved mine, if you disagree, show me where it went wrong instead on writing useless stuff. <div></div>

Quijonsith

12-04-2005, 08:47 PM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:That's your opinion on the subject, yes. My opinion differs greatly. <div> </div> <div>I'm an incredible healer in most situations that I place myself in. I consider my abilities as tools that are very useful for the right circumstances.</div> <hr></blockquote>That is </span><span>your opinion on the subject, yes. And what I have seen, you are almost alone with it. Yes, there are some who think like you, but you are a small minority. <font color="#ffff00"> </font><font color="#ffff00"> Every priest have very useful abilities in the right circumstances. But unlike templars, they can utilize most of their abilities even in normal circumstances, they dont need any 'right' circumstances to be great healers.</font><font color="#ff9933"> </font> <font color="#ffff00"> I wrote this before: A tier 6 furys basic healing power is equivalent to what a templar can bring up in those 'right' circumstances. If the circumstances aren't 'right', fury will still heal like before, but templars lose even 50% of their healing power. And this has nothing to do with opinions, it is pure math and you have read the facts (and stayed silent).</font><font color="#ffff00"> </font> <font color="#ffff00"> </font><font color="#ffff00"> Oh, and BTW, you are right, healers dont heal the same. Templars are not the best healers in any situation exept one. This is when the fight lasts for about 3s and mt is hit for total of 2x the damage that templar reactives can heal combined. In those cases, templars truly are the only ones who can keep mt alive. If the fight lasts for 4s, oops, mt dies...</font><font color="#ffff00"> </font> Now if you think differently, why dont you prove it? You know how reactives, wards and HoT's work. Now present a situation where templar is the best healer. The math is really easy to do if you know as much as you claim. And then tell me where that kind of encouter is. </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class="date_text">12-04-2005</span> <span class="time_text">02:18 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote> Exactly what 'right' circumstances do templars need? With all the healing utility we get we are the MOST adaptable healing class. I pride myself on being known as a great healer in ANY situation except mobs that are orange to me and the tank, in which case myself and another healer (so far done best with a warden) is a beauty. Why can't you use your healing in normal circumstances? What are normal circumstances? Is there any such thing? Circumstances vary so much across the board that I haven't seen any "normal". What I have seen is a dozen different situations that I have just as many strategies for. I put EVERY spell I have to use, even pacify and stun which save me mana all the time. If you think you can't use your spells you need to examine them again. They are all very usefull with the right imagination. As far as the situation you gave as an example of Templars being the best healer, and that being the only situation, BULL. I must say that I find that comment insulting. Many have commented on my amazing healing prowess and I assure you that the fights were not as you described. "Best" is not in the style of the heal, but in the players ability to use that style to it's fullest advantage. So stop talking as if templars are bad healers, which is exactly what you sound like you think. IMO having a wide array of healing spells in my arsonal to be able to adapt with where my core healing style isn't enough makes us the best.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Quijonsith on <span class=date_text>12-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:59 AM</span>

Timaarit

12-05-2005, 01:02 AM

I can heal in normal circumstances just fine. The thing is that others can do the same with less time spent on casting and waiting of recasts. Also in order to heal like others, templar needs to cast every lotto heal one has and usually even that doesn't cover the difference. Also when someone takes a single big hit, templars are possibly the worst class to heal that. <div></div>

Kendricke

12-05-2005, 02:49 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><BR>Also when someone takes a single big hit, templars are possibly the worst class to heal that.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>How often is that happening to you? Outside of raiding (and frankly, on raids, you want all three classes of priests typically - well, at last we do), what are you fighting that's just hitting slow and hard? Even then, why aren't you using Involuntary Healer, Glory of Combat, and Mark of Kings? </P> <P>I don't personally understand Templars who concentrate on the worst case scenarios for us and then point to that as "proof" that our class isn't up to par. I'm certain the developers are able to tell the difference. That said, I just can't understand the desire to "prove" our class is broken only by using such examples. I wonder who is it supposed to convince? </P> <P> </P>

Caethre

12-05-2005, 03:19 AM

<DIV>OOC.<BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <P>I don't personally understand Templars who concentrate on the worst case scenarios for us and then point to that as "proof" that our class isn't up to par. I'm certain the developers are able to tell the difference. That said, I just can't understand the desire to "prove" our class is broken only by using such examples. I wonder who is it supposed to convince? <BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>The "worst case scenario" is 95%+ of my logged in time when I was playing Templar since LU13.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Much of it, I was solo, questing for the most part. I can only solo at between 1/3 and 1/2 the XP rate of a Fury.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Much of it, I was duo. With any partner, I can only XP at a rate of (estimate) 60-70% of the rate I could if I was playing Fury rather than Templar.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When I'm grouped, I'm fighting things that involve some healing, and some other mana use. My proc heals are almost never cast, since they are a waste of power, the heals are not needed (if they were, we would be up ^&*^ creek, because they are too tiny and, by their very nature, random and therefore unreliable). I can supply no actual useful utility (such as SoW, Group Invis, or more), no nice extra damage spells (like Fae Flames or offensive buffs), but I can cast stronger defensive buffs (that the group can manage without). And with all my extra power I do not need to heal, I can knock out a whopping 80 dps or so. But a Fury my level/gear can manage between two and three times that, as well as do all the needed healing, so groups want the Fury because the XP rate is better.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Worst case scenario? It's the every single day situation.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templar is so clearly broken for such a playstyle, it's obvious to anyone with eyes. Which is why the Templars are the ones left LFG, and why groups are now actively taking druids over clerics, and why so many Templars are re-rolling as druids. Proof? Actually read the post of others, rather than using them merely to plan your next lecture.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But Kendricke, protected in his big guild groups, is still "alright", so its just a "worse case scenario" that doesn't need attention. You continue to fight against those of us trying to get our class fixed. It continues to be tiresome.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We need EITHER a restoration of the healing advantage we had before LU-13 (yes, a BIG one), in which case our terrible DPS/Utility will be balanced by that OR we need to have parity in all areas.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Quijonsith

12-05-2005, 09:15 AM

If you don't use the proc heals afforded to you then that's why you experience templar as a lesser healer. I've seen to many posts from people claiming that our proc heals are too small and unreliable. When it comes to short fights I use the Fate line and rebuke line to get a group heal when the fight's over and to increase melee dps of the group. Slightly longer fights i'll use the Involuntary Healer line and it goes off almost every fight. Heck, when soloing green v's while harvesting I use IH and it proc'd in every fight (I know because they were scouts and kept using trauma effects on me which got cured by IH). IH on multiple mobs, goes off all the time. GoC on 3 melee char's goes off all the time, Throw in the Mark line and there's a good stack of healing without using any power. Not to mention pacify and stun, which has saved me ALOT of power in chain pulling. You are looking at each spell individually and over short periods. Using our proc heals is just like choosing a ring with 50pwr over a ring with 45pwr. Every bit helps. When combined, you get a sizeable amount. As far as the balance of DPS and utility, no I don't think the amount of healing our proc's do is enough to counter the utility and DPS advantage the other classes have over us. However, we are not a "broken" class by anymeans. We just need a little Dev love. I hardly get to group with my guildies with the timeframe that I play, but I'm almost never left LFG. And I have never met anyone who specifically is looking for another healing class of a templar. Groups announce "looking for healer" not "looking for healer, templars need not apply". Other classes fill in for DPS. The only time I've seen an example of this is when someone looks for a fury for group invis, which plenty of other classes have aswell. For soloing and duoing, yes templar SUCKS as far as XP rate. I do feel that I am reliant on near full groups to advance my templar. I believe this is something that needs serious attention. But, this thread is about the different priest classes healing ability. There are enough threads whining about "joe fury across the street can mow the lawn faster than I can" so lets not start that again. Every post I've seen you make Caethre is a reitteration of this or an attack towards Kendricke. He's not fighting against people trying to get us fixed by any means. Or haven't you seen the "Holy book of Templar Issues" thread which he has so diligently maintainted and which has gotten devs attention and gotten bugs looked into and fixed. <div></div>

Takeo1

12-05-2005, 09:18 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE>Kendricke wrote: <P>That's an interesting opinion...but I've always been a fan of Adam Smith style grouping myself. In Wealth of Nations (Book I, Chapter I), Smith goes on to outline the most basic principle of modern capitalism: specialization. Five people performing each of five different steps to create a widget will never be able to create widgets as effeciently as five people each performing the same task in the process over and over.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>The problem is that templars aren't specialized into anything. Every other healing class heals as well as we do, so there is no specialization. But we do lack the variety other healers have. But that is not called specialization, it is called being impaired.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>That's your opinion on the subject, yes. My opinion differs greatly. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm an incredible healer in most situations that I place myself in. I consider my abilities as tools that are very useful for the right circumstances. No, you don't require a nailgun to put up a poster...any old hammer will do. However, if you're putting together the framing for a house...you're going to want something a bit more powerful than any old hammer (even though it <EM>can</EM> get the job done).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you, as a Templar, are placing yourself and your group in "any old grouping situation", then my question would be "why"? Find the situations that work toward your strengths, not your weaknesses, and work from that. I don't see myself as "just a priest". I'm a Templar, and I heal. I heal in situations that other priests might or would have difficulty in. I do this because I recognize that we have certain strengths.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You apparantly disagree. That's fine if you feel that way. However, back up those claims or risk having those claims ignored by the folks who really know the difference - the developers. That's just plain common sense, in my opinion. If you say that "all healers heal the same" and if the developers feel differently based on their design and numbers, who are you going to convince? Just because an anonymous player on the message board says one thing, they're going to alter the design? Of course not. They might look at the design with enough opinions raised...but overall, the design's based firmly on numbers. If you can't prove the numbers to back the claims, then you'd best hope your guess is on the money. If it's not, then you're simply tilting at windmills.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'll freely admit I could be wrong. However, I'm going to guess that the recognition I've been afforded to this point is at least a small indiciation that I'm often able to back my opinions enough to gain the attention where it counts. You can ignore that, or you can try to learn from it. You want changes...work within the system. If you want to just complain, then by all means, vent all you wish here. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Either way, I'm working toward changes I feel are important and I'm doing it in the way I feel will work. You're apparantly doing the same. Only time will tell which approach is correct.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Hehe. Prob is boyo - if ya dont know the dimensions on the house, or even what the foundo looks like in print much less for framing - what the hell are ya building? In this case I am thinking that the vision is built of straw, much like the house. It makes it easier to change at a later date, or if the wind blows a wee hard. </P> <P> </P> <P>Lates.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

Quijonsith

12-05-2005, 09:52 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Takeo101 wrote: <p>Hehe. Prob is boyo - if ya dont know the dimensions on the house, or even what the foundo looks like in print much less for framing - what the hell are ya building? In this case I am thinking that the vision is built of straw, much like the house. It makes it easier to change at a later date, or if the wind blows a wee hard. </p> <p>Lates.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>ROFLMAO now that's a perfect description of SOE's methods for their MMO's</span><div></div>

Kendricke

12-05-2005, 09:56 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <DIV>OOC.<BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <P>I don't personally understand Templars who concentrate on the worst case scenarios for us and then point to that as "proof" that our class isn't up to par. I'm certain the developers are able to tell the difference. That said, I just can't understand the desire to "prove" our class is broken only by using such examples. I wonder who is it supposed to convince? <BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>The "worst case scenario" is 95%+ of my logged in time when I was playing Templar since LU13.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's one area of opinion where you and I differ most dramatically. Your 95% scenario is a small fraction of my weekly online time. During the Desert of Flames update and again for a few weeks after the Revamp went live, I realized that we'd changed subtely, but in very important ways. I started grouping with more and more melee groups, and started to search out heavy group situations where my added reliance upon healing functionality would be more effective (rather than simply preloading 3 or more reactives prior to each pull). </P> <P>I started experimenting more with the new Sign line (especially in conjunction with Prostrate line, and even Soothe) to help out smaller groups I'd join to handle more dangerous areas. I toyed with casting multiple instances of Glory of Combat (which I couldn't do prior to the Revamp) and I started to make better use of planning out my heals rather than just "spamcasting" (as I did prior to the revamp). </P> <P>This worked for me. Yes, our effectiveness was cut in the revamp, just as was done to other previously overpowered classes. However, we're still effective. Not just in the "right" situations, but in most situations. If you're finding yourself in those wrong situations most of the time, then you need to alter your style of play to encourage finding more of the right situation to be in. Warlocks had to adapt...so did Swashbucklers...and Guardians...and Illusionists...and Conjurors...and pretty much every other class in Norrath. Why should Templars be different in that regard? </P> <P>Sure, the revamp may not have worked for you. However, to state we're useless in 95% of situations? ...or that we're "broken"? Well, I think the designers know that we're not...and the thousands of Templars I believe are logging in each night are a testament to the fact that the class is far from unpopular or unplayable. Many Templars may not like the idea of "control" being part of our new utility. I do. If that places me in the minority, then so be it. It's the new design. It's the intended design, if the developers are to be believed.</P> <P>If this new design doesn't work for your playstyle, then you've likely done the right thing in finding a class which does work for you. Honestly, I've had members who were fed up with the game till they switched classes (had two Beserkers consider quitting the game pre-revamp...then they picked up a Conjuror and a Warlock post-revamp and they're happy as can be now; had a Monk change to Templar; had another Monk change to Dirge; and a Troubadour change to Guardian). Changes occured. Playstyles altered. Players adapted. </P> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <DIV>OOC.<BR></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Much of it, I was solo, questing for the most part. I can only solo at between 1/3 and 1/2 the XP rate of a Fury.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Much of it, I was duo. With any partner, I can only XP at a rate of (estimate) 60-70% of the rate I could if I was playing Fury rather than Templar. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Furies have always, always, always been faster at soloing than Templars. Always. If you were soloing as a Templar prior to the revamp, you were unable to keep up with a Fury of comparable level, gear, and player ability. This did not change after the revamp. The fastest levelling member of my own guild was a pre-revamp Fury...and he soloed most of that. Even duoing, Furies have always been able to put more DPS into their groups than Templars. </P> <P>This argument could have been made 6 months ago and held the same relevance. The revamp didn't create a situation where Furies could solo or duo faster. That's always been the case.</P> <P>In fact, prior to the revamp, I used to group with a Guardian that was virtually indestrucable once we'd both completed buffing. On more than one occasion, he'd invite me out to Temple of Cazic Thule and tell me that he simply needed my buffs...and he'd proceed to solo white or yellow heroic groups all by himself with me simply sitting on as a bystander. Of course I'd help out, but prior to the revamp, Guardians and Templars were Gods among mortals. I'd watch entire groups wipe near us while we continued to slaughter the same encounters as a duo. We simply were untouchable. </P> <P>To myself, this seemed completely contrary to intended design announcements prior to and during initial release. At the first Summit, this subject came up a lot...and we were informed quite a bit that this would no longer be the case post-revamp. We were told clearly (and this was repeated in many write-ups on the subject) that the days of such wild class disparity was coming to an end. </P> <P>Now, more to the point is the fact that Templars can solo effectively. We're not as efficient as most classes, but the option exists. For myself, this is simply more of the playstyle that is expected from Templars. If fast experience is truly what a Templar desires, then form up in those challenging groups I keep recommending and then push for faster, harder pulls. In those situations, I'm truly able to stretch my proverbial wings and soar. </P> <P>No, we're not the best soloers. We never have been. Then again, the discussion here was based on who is the best healer...and though there may exist some situations wherein I'm not the best choice, I tend to find those situations (for myself) are few and far between. </P>

Kendricke

12-05-2005, 10:14 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>We need EITHER a restoration of the healing advantage we had before LU-13 (yes, a BIG one), in which case our terrible DPS/Utility will be balanced by that OR we need to have parity in all areas.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Are you arguing that Templars cannot keep groups standing as is? Most of the arguments I keep reading on this forum indicate that the issue most disgruntled Templars have is that all priests can heal in a typical group now so current Templar healing prowess isn't necessary. What would increasing our healing ability do if such is the case? </P> <P>For argument's sake, and assuming that all priests can now perform the healing required by a general, run of the mill group already, what would increasing our healing abilities do for our groupability? After all, most of your arguments regarding Fury desirability in groups have nothing to do with healing prowess, but rather with straightline DPS. How do you feel that increasing our ability to heal would suddenly make us more desirable in groups than Furies, in your eyes?<BR></P> <P> </P>

kenji

12-05-2005, 10:25 AM

<P>a fighter starting an exp grp, with no friend online, look for priest. assume need 100 pts healing to keep the fighter alive, and most other utilities healer</P> <P>6 different Priest LFG</P> <P>Priest A - 105pt heal, 90pt utility, 130pt dps.<BR>Priest B - 105pt heal, 120pt utility, 80pt dps.<BR>Priest C - 105pt heal, 100pt utilty, 100pt dps.<BR>Priest D - 110pt heal, 110pt utility, 90pt dps.<BR>Priest E - 100pt heal, 130pt utility, 80pt dps.<BR>Priest F - 135pt heal, 70pt utility, 65pt dps.<BR><BR>choose 1. i tell u which class u chose after, or u know it already.</P>

Timaarit

12-05-2005, 11:22 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:Also when someone takes a single big hit, templars are possibly the worst class to heal that. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>How often is that happening to you? Outside of raiding (and frankly, on raids, you want all three classes of priests typically - well, at last we do), what are you fighting that's just hitting slow and hard? Even then, why aren't you using Involuntary Healer, Glory of Combat, and Mark of Kings? </p> <p>I don't personally understand Templars who concentrate on the worst case scenarios for us and then point to that as "proof" that our class isn't up to par. I'm certain the developers are able to tell the difference. That said, I just can't understand the desire to "prove" our class is broken only by using such examples. I wonder who is it supposed to convince? </p> <hr></blockquote>It happens every time someone gets aggro from the MT. And that is often. True, generally it doesn't matter much, our MT can grab aggro back rather quickly, but then there are times when it does. Well, I dont think I they gave us the best rez in game for no reason... <span>:smileymad:</span></span><div></div>

Quijonsith

12-05-2005, 01:33 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>kenjiso wrote:<p>a fighter starting an exp grp, with no friend online, look for priest. assume need 100 pts healing to keep the fighter alive, and most other utilities healer</p> <p>6 different Priest LFG</p> <p>Priest A - 105pt heal, 90pt utility, 130pt dps.Priest B - 105pt heal, 120pt utility, 80pt dps.Priest C - 105pt heal, 100pt utilty, 100pt dps.Priest D - 110pt heal, 110pt utility, 90pt dps.Priest E - 100pt heal, 130pt utility, 80pt dps.Priest F - 135pt heal, 70pt utility, 65pt dps.choose 1. i tell u which class u chose after, or u know it already.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote> I doubt there are many fighters that think like this. When I play my monk I look for any healer of the appropriate level range. I've grouped with both good and bad players of almost every priest subclass and I can tell you that some made thier class look gimped while others made thier class look amazing. I don't look for healer X because of their DPS or uitlity. I get scouts, mages, and other fighters for DPS. I don't look for healers because of the utility or DPS they provide. If a certain class comes along that has X utility I think "sweet we get X benefit" otherwise I'm happy witih what I do get.</span><div></div>

Quijonsith

12-05-2005, 01:42 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:Also when someone takes a single big hit, templars are possibly the worst class to heal that. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>How often is that happening to you? Outside of raiding (and frankly, on raids, you want all three classes of priests typically - well, at last we do), what are you fighting that's just hitting slow and hard? Even then, why aren't you using Involuntary Healer, Glory of Combat, and Mark of Kings? </p> <p>I don't personally understand Templars who concentrate on the worst case scenarios for us and then point to that as "proof" that our class isn't up to par. I'm certain the developers are able to tell the difference. That said, I just can't understand the desire to "prove" our class is broken only by using such examples. I wonder who is it supposed to convince? </p> <hr></blockquote>It happens every time someone gets aggro from the MT. And that is often. True, generally it doesn't matter much, our MT can grab aggro back rather quickly, but then there are times when it does. Well, I dont think I they gave us the best rez in game for no reason... <span>:smileymad:</span></span><div></div><hr></blockquote> This may be true, however I've been complimented on my amazing "pulled that heal outta my [Removed for Content]" ability with my skils even in these situations. I have had plenty of over zeleous mages pull aggro off the MT and I have realised two sides to this. If a mage is constantly being overzeleous then I won't bother waisting my time trying to keep them alive when it means losing focus of the MT. This way they might learn to manage their DPS if they keep dieing. I've also had mages tell me "don't worry about me keep the tank alive". If the mage (or scout) pulls aggro off the MT only once in a while I'll do what I can to keep them alive. Very rarely do I have a mage get one-shotted(outside of raids) but their HP does get low. If I see a mage's HP suddenly drop to orange I'll drop my emergency group reactive to heal the group and give me time to drop a direct heal on the mage. I also put Focused Benefaction to good use when I see damage going all over the place. So, in short, maybe we aren't the best to deal with THAT situation, but we are adaptive enough for many. There's always that one scenario that healer-X can't do as well as healer-Y or even as well as any other healer. That's called balance.</span><div></div>

Timaarit

12-05-2005, 01:50 PM

The thing I have noticed is that the mage lives only if I have just cast group reactive before the mage gets aggro. In that case I have enough time to heal and stun so that the mage lives as the procs generally mean that the mage can take that one extra hit. If I dont have group reactive up, well, it is rezzing time. <div></div>

kenji

12-05-2005, 02:05 PM

<P>if u are always wanted a big group, yes the priest doesnt matter.<BR>if u duo, trio. it matters alot if u want fastest xp rate <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR><BR>X utility u think of is.. Group Evac? Group Invis? Single Target Gate to Town? Glory of Combat? Manatap for healer? SoW? AC debuff? all type debuff in 1 spell?</P> <P>which 1 u want most?</P> <P>and for the skillz...what if your friend w/ uber skill that have all 6 priest lvl 60? which 1 will u choose?<BR></P>

kenji

12-05-2005, 02:16 PM

<DIV>Qui....that situation is...It happens every time someone gets aggro from the MT. takes a single big hit, templars are possibly the worst class to heal that...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>direct heal to heal a class is worst ratio, worst way to keep him good on health. BiTF is the fastest way, Regen is the best ratio way, Mystic Ward+Regen probably another good way for extra block and good ratio.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Inquisitor got extra heal when cast beneficial spell, which can pass Templar's skill, cos if cast RH, it will have 1st extra 200ish heal poped.. better than us. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>due to Defiler heal same as us.. but...they got ward that can block. while Templar need to wait 1 more punch , that may kill the "someone" before it actually proc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Worst? i agreed on that</DIV>

Quijonsith

12-05-2005, 02:21 PM

<div></div><div></div>Kenjiso... For duo and small group I'll agree that one might choose a certain class. For the longest time I duo'd with a warden in my guild untll he passed my monk rapidly. I guess my PoV is scewed towards closer to full groups. That's what I go for, and I haven't found it difficult to have 4 or more players to group with. Heck, last night was one of the best groups I've ever tanked for. Myself (started as 45 monk and got to 47 in same group in one night), a 46 templar, a 48 or 49 ranger )forget which) and a 44 conjuror using her air pet (melee dps). We were able to take on two or three even con heroic mobs (single ^^^'s and multiple members with different arrows). At one point when we still had a 47 paladin back up tanking and assisting with heals/wards we took on 4 lvl 46 ^^^'s at the same time and won. I guess what I'm saying is that I prefer closer to full groups and so my view is biased towards that. I never "look" for a duoing partner that I don't know and being that my fighter char is a monk I can do enough DPS that I don't care what healer is with me. Guess if I played a guardian I might look for a fury. I'll agree that you have a point about duo and trio play, which I often forget about. <div></div><p><span class="time_text"> As far as the utility I think of, being a monk I love having an inquisitor in the group for the haste. Outside of that utiltiy doesn't really come to mind until it's needed like evac. As far as other healers being better at healing the situation you mentioned, yes others would be better suited at healing for that. But, like I said, every healing class has it's scenario that it's not the "best" at. If this weren't the case it would be very unbalanced. I don't spend my time thinking up situations that other's are better at than I am with my templar. I just think of how I can improve my strategies for the situations that have given me the most challenge. </span></p><p>Message Edited by Quijonsith on <span class=date_text>12-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:24 AM</span>

Quijonsith

12-05-2005, 02:27 PM

<div></div><div></div>As far as our direct heal being the worse ratio, yes it is but it's the most healing in one shot. Do you want efficiency or big bursts? I like how my heals work cause it fits my style. As far as if I had a friend with uber skill and all 6 priests lvl 60...I wouldn't make the choice honestly. I'd ask my friend to bring along which ever one (s)he wants to so (s)he can have the most fun possible. This is a game after all. It's all about how much fun you have. With my own DPS being a fair amount I don't really care which class the person brings because (s)he is such a good player. All I need is a skilled player on my side. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Quijonsith on <span class="date_text">12-05-2005</span> <span class="time_text">01:29 AM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Quijonsith on <span class=date_text>12-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:31 AM</span>

Quijonsith

12-05-2005, 02:35 PM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:The thing I have noticed is that the mage lives only if I have just cast group reactive before the mage gets aggro. In that case I have enough time to heal and stun so that the mage lives as the procs generally mean that the mage can take that one extra hit. If I dont have group reactive up, well, it is rezzing time. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Every healer has a situation in which they are limited by what they have available. I freely admit that this is definitely one of them for us. All one can do is try their best when presented with such a situation. A good player understands that the other players have thier limitations with their class and can recognize when their groupmates do the best they can. To me it's not about analyzing one situation, best is about being able to excel in as many situations as possible, about versatility. Monks and Templars do just that.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Quijonsith on <span class=date_text>12-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:39 AM</span>

kenji

12-05-2005, 02:57 PM

u may think Monk with Templar just fine...i would say Inquisitor, Warden, Fury even Mystic can be better partner.

Quijonsith

12-05-2005, 03:07 PM

<div></div>Ok, I'll take a stab at picking one then. For douing I would probably choose an inquisitor over a templar. I'd have alot of haste form the inquisitor, not to mention their offensive capabilities. And should the quisy get an add he can more easily take the hit than a druid or shammy. But if I were duoing with a templar it wouldn't cause me any grief. Fun is fun. I will say this. I picked to play a templar for a couple reasons: A: Because I thought it would be cool to be a healer wearing plate. B. My friends had formed a guild in Qeynos. I knew full and well that Templars were more defensive than Inquisitors, and most any oher class. That being the case I never expected to be a soloing/small grouping class even though I didn my share of it (never knew how slow soloing and small grouping was for me until I rolled up a monk). I don't play a templar to solo or small group, I play a templar for full groups. Templars will always be the defensive priests. But we could use a lil love in the offense department. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Quijonsith on <span class=date_text>12-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:14 AM</span>

Timaarit

12-05-2005, 03:55 PM

There are no longer any significant difference between offensive and defensive archtypes. Templars have utility that is oriented in defence while inquisitors for example have offensive utility. And as it is, these two classes are pretty well balanced compared to each other, pick templar for a bit extra heals and pick inquisitor for a bit extra DPS. The thing is that when you look at other priest and compare them to clerics, they have kind of a similar division, offensive side and defensive side. But with class balance, shouldn't inquistor be comparable to a fury in all aspects, not just healing? This means that since inquisitor is supposed to heal like a fury, they should also do equal DPS. And same should apply to the other side. Templars get lotto heals in addition to defensive utility while furies get lotto DPS procs and massively bigger basic nukes. Just compare the AE capabilities. Templars are nowhere near in damage nor do they get any heals to compensate the lack of DPS. In fact, furies were actually given more heals in the end game. Templars got a crappy use-power-to-heal spell (now this would be useful as a permanent-untill-cancelled buff), Sanctuary with long recast and a spell that actually does damage to group (divine arbitration). So templars got some defensive spells at t6 while furies got heals. Templars got no extra DPS even though furies went past in healing power. Who wants to trade Reverence to a 1300pts heal with fast cast and recast? I know I do. <div></div>

Quijonsith

12-05-2005, 04:04 PM

You bring up an interesting idea. Each class (cleric, shaman, and druid) has a defensive side and an offensive side. IMO templars, wardens, and mystics should be comparable in defense to each other while balanced against the offensive power of their counterparts of inquisitor, fury, and defiler while said counterparts should have comparable offensive prowess. Thus allowing style to be the class definition (reactive vs ward vs regen). Defensive procs vs offensive procs balanced, healing fairly balanced across all subclasses, and utility spread out (to me evac is one of wardens defensive abilities as an example). All of this I can't really concieve as too complicated to achieve except for the utility aspect. Unfortunately SOE hasn't seemed to figure anything out. <div></div>

Andu

12-05-2005, 05:11 PM

<P>**REMOVED DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>12-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:34 AM</span>

Caethre

12-05-2005, 05:35 PM

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Quijonsith wrote:<BR> If you don't use the proc heals afforded to you then that's why you experience templar as a lesser healer. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I do not agree, and I suggest, you are simply not talking about the same situation I am.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Compare pre and post LU13.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>PreLU13, I could be in a group of 3 or 4 (templar with plate tank and 1-2 others as other tanks, healers or mages) and take down things at a rate as good or better than the group could with a fury in my place. This was because their greater dps was being balanced by the fact they they struggled with the healing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>PostLU13, the fury can heal this setup as easily as I can. The extra power means they help kill faster than I can. That group is now better with a fury than my templar every single time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I didnt use the proc heals then and I do not now. I am a very skilled healer, Ive been doing the cleric role since launch of EQ1, and I know which effects work and which do not.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Im not talking about hardcore groups, I never was.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P></P> <P>Quijonsith wrote:<BR> I've seen to many posts from people claiming that our proc heals are too small and unreliable. When it comes to short fights I use the Fate line and rebuke line to get a group heal when the fight's over and to increase melee dps of the group. Slightly longer fights i'll use the Involuntary Healer line and it goes off almost every fight. </P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I suggest you are going to carry on seeing such posts. I consider the Mark line to be poor except on long fights, and I mostly am involved in short fights. I consider the Involuntary line to be almost totally useless, as it almost never fires, and I refuse to continually waste power on it when I can be using that excess power to nuke - not that my groups need the healing from it anyway, thankfully, as the mobs are easy to kill.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Basically, postLU13, I value the Fury class FAR FAR higher than the Templar class, and I feel that needs rectifying. It is not just about healing, it is about healing PLUS everything else, the whole package, the big picture.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P></P> <P>Quijonsith wrote:<BR> You are looking at each spell individually and over short periods. Using our proc heals is just like choosing a ring with 50pwr over a ring with 45pwr. Every bit helps. .</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>If you are going to use analogies like this, Ill give you the one I see. The Templar has that 50pwr ring. The Fury has a 49 pwr ring, and on his other hand, has a free +100dps ring. Your observations may vary, but playing both classes, this is what I see.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> <HR> <P></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Quijonsith wrote:<BR><BR> For soloing and duoing, yes templar SUCKS as far as XP rate. </FONT></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Well, wasn't that my point? Isn't that ALWAYS my point?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Now, just take the next mental step from this, since you have accepted this much. How do you think it affects the XP in trios? Or groups of 4? Sure, the difference is not as great as with a solo or duo setup, but it is still there. How about a group of six fighting what I imagine you might call "easy" content? Yes, you got it, the difference is STILL there, though it gets smaller as the group size rises.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Now you have got the whole of my complaints about the balance situation encapsulated.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Quijonsith wrote:<BR>Every post I've seen you make Caethre is a reitteration of this or an attack towards Kendricke. He's not fighting against people trying to get us fixed by any means. Or haven't you seen the "Holy book of Templar Issues" thread which he has so diligently maintainted and which has gotten devs attention and gotten bugs looked into and fixed. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Yes, of course every post is a re-iteration of this!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My class is broken for my playstyle, and I use the word broken deliberately because it is so bad I am feeling forced to play another class until it is fixed. Just because you may not find that to be true for you, makes it no less true for me. This is a major issue for me, and its no surprise I am going to keep on posting and posting on this issue. Don't be suprised if you see many more, from me and many others, all reporting the same problems - because the problems do not go away unless actually fixed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But as for Kendricke, he is throwing up obfuscating smoke the whole time. I see him as someone who is trying to prevent our class getting looked at, frankly. I am pleased the devs have looked at our board, but so far the "fixes" have amounted to corrections to incorrect spell descriptions and two VERY minor bugs that have no effect on class balance whatsoever. To actually address the real problems of our class, the devs will need to look at the stickied thread and address some of those rather more substantial class balance points.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>

Quijonsith

12-05-2005, 05:40 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Anduri wrote:<div></div> <p><span>** More Kendricke induced frustration “” <font color="#ffff00">Time to point out a few things about the above sentence...</font> </span></p> <p><span>Lets respond to some of his latest comments:</span></p> <p><span>“With all the healing utility we get we are the MOST adaptable healing class.” <font color="#ffff00">This is something I said in one of my posts above. Our wide variety of healing utility spells lets us adapt quite well if you know how to use them.</font> </span></p> <p><span>WRONG – we are, by design, the least adaptable healing class. We have the highest healing spells but they have the longest cast/recast times. As an analogy, other classes are nimble but don’t punch so hard whereas we are the juggernauts who can punch hard but cannot respond very quickly. We are great at focused healing on the MT but the moment he loses agro and the fur starts flying in the group then we start to struggle. I’m not saying we cannot respond, far from it, but we are hardly the MOST adaptable class. </span></p> <p><span><font color="#ffff00">I'll give you that when the group starts taking damage we do lag a little bit behind in healing it, but so do shamans if their wards weren't up. I have found Glory of Combat (post 47) and Focused Benefaction (post 50) to help alot with group damage, but druids got us beat in healing the group when "sh** happens".</font> </span> </p> <p><span>“"Best" is not in the style of the heal, but in the players ability to use that style to it's fullest advantage.<span> </span>So stop talking as if templars are bad healers, which is exactly what you sound like you think.” </span></p> <p><span><font color="#ffff00">That sentence is directly from one of my posts above. Glad to see we're in agreement here.</font> </span></p> <p><span>I agree with you here. I am tired of all the fighting with other classes over who is the best healer and the they have 5% edge here and we have 2.5464% edge there. We all heal roughly the same. So will people just say whether they (a) want to be better healers than the other classes or (b) want compensation in our utility and DPS to make up for our lost healing edge.</span></p> <p><span>The suggestion that we are bad healers is patently wrong and does a disservice to our class. We are very good healers and the best in some circumstances.</span></p> <p><span></span><span></span> <font color="#ffff00">"DIsservice to our class"... couldn't have said it better myself. Well put.</font> </p> <p><span>“Even then, why aren't you using Involuntary Healer, Glory of Combat, and Mark of Kings?” </span></p> <p><span><font color="#ffff00">Again from my post.</font> </span></p> <p><span>Because it takes too long to cast them on most mobs. Unless you are fighting orange ^^^ mobs or have a shortage of DPS in your group, most things just die to darn quickly for us to cast these spells and for them to have any meaning. Casting Mark of Kings when there is 25% of health left on the target is just a waste of power.</span></p> <p><span>And if we cannot cast them in time for them to be effective, well – they aren’t very effective then are they? </span></p> <p><span><font color="#ffff00">I'll agree with you there. Mark of Kings isn't very useful in "normal" group situations because the fights are so short. I use it for soloing, taking on orange heroics, and raids. Short fights call for rebuke line and the fate line (which helps with the group damage nicely).</font> </span></p> <p><span>I would say that anyone who hasn’t got Glory of Combat up though needs to re-examine what they are doing. That spell is a keeper. Doesn’t help low and mid-level Templars much though does it?</span></p> <p><span></span><span></span> <font color="#ffff00">Agreed. I got my templar to 47 before the combat revamp so I tend to forget what it's like for the lower levels. Good to have someone remind me once in a while. </font></p> <p><span>“Furies have always, always, always been faster at soloing than Templars.<span> </span>Always.<span> </span>If you were soloing as a Templar prior to the revamp, you were unable to keep up with a Fury of comparable level, gear, and player ability.<span> </span>This did not change after the revamp.”</span></p> <p><span>You are missing the point again. Pre-revamp we were the best healers so we didn’t mind this disadvantage. It was the “balance” between Templars and Furies. What is the balance now though?</span></p> <p><span></span><span></span> <font color="#ffff00">Agreed, and in another thread I've posted how I think it should be. Short version: Within each class there is offensive and defensive that are fairly balanced. The problem is the classes aren't balanced. Inquisitor/Fury/Defiler should be equally offensiv. Templar/Warden/Mystic should be equally defensive. Healing style is the differentiation. </font></p> <p><span>“This argument could have been made 6 months ago and held the same relevance.<span> </span>“</span></p> <p><span>No it couldn’t because (rightly or wrongly) furies were poorer healers than us. Broken healers admittedly and certainly in need of some fixing. However the principle was there, we were better healers and they were better at DPS. Again - where is the balance now?</span></p> <p><span></span> <font color="#ffff00">Again agreed.</font> </p> <p><span>“If you, as a Templar, are placing yourself and your group in "any old grouping situation", then my question would be "why"?”</span></p> <p><span>Because many of us don’t have the time and option to play any other way. You are very fortunate to have a guild around you and a large base of friends. Can you hear yourself? You are suggesting in this sentence that Templars should have to arrange their own groups and pick targets specifically so that we can express ourselves properly. Well, you may have the amount of time available to be able to do this but most of us don’t. Most of us are happy just to get into “any old group”. </span></p> <p><span><font color="#ffff00">I don't know about Kendricke, but I don't rely on my guild a whole lot for grouping because of my akward schedule. For templars to shine we need challenging content. Whatever group you do get (and I know what you mean with any old group, which I too have to do) if things are going well or are to easy to heal (often the case for templars IMO) then push for tougher content.</font> </span></p> <p><span>If a class, any class, in this game has to go to the lengths you are suggesting here then surely it’s blindingly obvious that something is wrong. If you as a person have to suggest these things then isn’t it obvious that the position you are taking in all this is fundamentally flawed?</span></p> <p><span></span><span></span> <font color="#ffff00">Agreed that we shouldn't have to do as I and Kendricke suggested. The content is just to fast. Mobs need more hp IMO </font></p> <p><span>“In fact, prior to the revamp, I used to group with a Guardian that was virtually indestrucable once we'd both completed buffing.<span> </span>On more than one occasion, he'd invite me out to </span><span>Temple</span><span> of </span><span>Cazic Thule</span><span> and tell me that he simply needed my buffs...and he'd proceed to solo white or yellow heroic groups all by himself with me simply sitting on as a bystander.<span> </span>“</span></p> <p><span>Paladins could have done it without you.</span></p> <p><span>Noone is really disputing there was a need for the Combat Upgrade, just some of the changes that were made.</span></p> <p><span></span> </p> <p><span>“To myself, this seemed completely contrary to intended design announcements prior to and during initial release.<span> </span>At the first </span><span>Summit</span><span>, this subject came up a lot...and we were informed quite a bit that this would no longer be the case post-revamp.<span> </span>We were told clearly (and this was repeated in many write-ups on the subject) that the days of such wild class disparity was coming to an end.”</span></p> <p><span>This is the bit that causes so much resentment on this board because it is clear that our so called representatives at the time didn’t have the insight to see that if all healing classes were going to be brought into line in terms of healing, then other areas in which Templars are weak would also need to be improved in compensation.</span></p> <p><span>In fact, the dogmatic way in which you repeat that “all is well” is likely due to this. To accept there is now a problem would be to suggest that you failed to represent Templars properly when it might have counted. Which, whether that is fair or not, many here think you did.</span></p> <p><span></span><span></span> </p> <p><span>“Now, more to the point is the fact that Templars can solo effectively.<span> </span>We're not as efficient as most classes, but the option exists.<span> </span>For myself, this is simply more of the playstyle that is expected from Templars.<span> </span>If fast experience is truly what a Templar desires, then form up in those challenging groups I keep recommending and then push for faster, harder pulls.<span> </span>In those situations, I'm truly able to stretch my proverbial wings and soar.”</span></p> <p><span>This would be all well and good if it was purely down to methods of xp’ing.</span></p> <p><span>However, SOE have put in the game a number of solo quests. All well and good you might say. However, the rewards to these quests are so good that they have almost become mandatory overnight. I find myself plodding my way through quest after quest in the Pillars of Flame, killing scorpions, goblins, whatever at the most nauseatingly slow pace. I watch mages one shotting them, fighters wading through them, scouts backstabbing them. Then leaving, having killed 20 while I am on my 5th. </span></p> <p><span><font color="#ffff00">Agreed. This is one of my biggest problems with the expansion. I've actually given up on doing any DoF content with my templar except for when invited to group. I'm getting my monk up there to do it (he's 47 now, woohoo)</font> </span></p> <p><span>It’s all very well telling us to change our playstyle to fit with our characters. But someone somewhere changed the game. We cannot do anything about that can we?</span></p> <p><span></span><span></span> </p> <p><span>“Most of the arguments I keep reading on this forum indicate that the issue most disgruntled Templars have is that all priests can heal in a typical group now so current Templar healing prowess isn't necessary.”</span></p> <p><span>QFE. All these arguments that we should be the best healers are in reality (whether intentionally or not) looking for other classes to be nerfed. An increase in our healing ability, whilst nice, would generally simply be a waste in combat as it is and certainly wouldn’t help in terms of our groupability.</span></p> <p><span></span><span></span> <font color="#ffff00"> </font></p> <p><span>“I'm an incredible healer in most situations that I place myself in”</span></p> <p><span>“stretch my proverbial wings and soar”</span></p> <p><span>… and other such stuff littered throughout your posts</span></p> <p><span>May I make, with all due respect, the observation that a little humility would go a long way. Pride as they say goes before the fall.</span></p> <div></div><font color="#ffff00">Though I agree that too much pride is a bad thing, I too have said such things as kendricke has here. The only reason I do, and I suspect the same of him, is in response to those making templars out to be bad healers.</font><hr></blockquote> The main reason I responded to this is because I've seen alot of attacks on kendricke and though many may be annoyed with him I feel that at the very least this post in particular is unjustified because of how much of it was either my words or something that I also said. If you want to disagree with a comment, do so. But don't sit here and make personal attacks at one person when others also say it. If you're going to attack kendricke for saying things make sure he's the only one saying it. Don't use my words to attack someone else. Either attack me with them, or simply comment on those words.</span><div></div>

Andu

12-05-2005, 05:54 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Quijonsith wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>The main reason I responded to this is because I've seen alot of attacks on kendricke and though many may be annoyed with him I feel that at the very least this post in particular is unjustified because of how much of it was either my words or something that I also said. If you want to disagree with a comment, do so. But don't sit here and make personal attacks at one person when others also say it. If you're going to attack kendricke for saying things make sure he's the only one saying it. Don't use my words to attack someone else. Either attack me with them, or simply comment on those words.<BR></SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well, it wasn't supposed to be a direct attack on Kendricke. As you noted, I agreed with many of the posts I thought he made (with all the posting, quoting and reposting I lost the thread there when cutting/pasting). It was ironic and perhaps unfortunate that those posts I agreed with were made by someone else.</P> <P>I'll go back to my post and make appropriate changes.</P> <P>As for my last comments, I really am trying to help Ken. It's that sort of waffle that gets people wound up with him. I agree with a fair chunk of what he says and have repeatedly said so. He just needs to be more conciliatory in the way he says things and if he was it would cut back on so much of the flaming on these boards.</P>

Quijonsith

12-05-2005, 05:58 PM

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>Cae, I can understand that from your PoV templars are broken. To me we're not, but I'm that's my playstyle. Now I see that when you say "broken" you're referring to the big picture and how we compare to everyone else. So I can understand in referring to us as "broken" in that sense, esp if you feel you need to look to another class. If your playstyle forces you to reroll, then for YOU the class is broken. I tend to focus on my char and not worry to much about other classes because that would ruin my fun. I disagree that the class itself is plain old broken (to me broken means lots of bugs and not being able to do our primary function like furies were pre LU13), but I can see your side of that. As far as how I healed pre LU13, almost all I used was my lotto heals. They did all the healing for me. I hardly ever had to use my reactives or my direct heals except once in a while because they usually shot the MT from orange to green on one cast. Now I use all my spells fairly evenly. I'll agree with you that the MoK line is useless in the average setting because the fights are so short. I use for solo, orange ^^^, and raids. As far as soloing up to 6 person group, I played my monk in a 4 person group with a templar, ranger, and conjuror. It was awesome XP and even if a fury were there instead of the templar I doubt there would have been a significant DPS increase because the fury would have been healing longer and note constantly nuking (I was chain pulling). Granted that with a ranger and conjuror there was alot of DPS (was a more challenging holding aggro). I normally group with 4 or 5 other people, with the occasional 4 person group. "If you are going to use analogies like this, Ill give you the one I see. The Templar has that 50pwr ring. The Fury has a 49 pwr ring, and on his other hand, has a free +100dps ring. Your observations may vary, but playing both classes, this is what I see." That's a good one. But if that's the case, then perhaps you should use the same comparison between templars and wardens, or inquisitors and furies. We are, after all, the defensive side of our class. Far as your oppinion of kendricke, not much I can do about that. You have your view of him and I have mine. Oh well. EDIT: As far as the Involuntary Healer line, it is a 25% chance, so I pretty well see it go off alot, and it helps with those scout mobs who like to stun with trauma effects. I guess "all the time" and "never goes off" is all in perception though. I would like to see it heal for more each time though, closer to what it did pre LU13. Would make it more worthy of being our utility. <div></div> EDIT 2: The problem I have with someone saying that templars are broken is that it makes us look like we can't do our primary job, healing, to those who don't play healers. If I didn't play a healer, and I saw people claiming templars to be broken, I would actively seek other healers. Perhaps the word "unplayable" or "frustrating" instead of "broken" would be better because of this.<p>Message Edited by Quijonsith on <span class="date_text">12-05-2005</span> <span class="time_text">05:28 AM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Quijonsith on <span class=date_text>12-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:28 AM</span>

Quijonsith

12-05-2005, 06:02 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Anduri wrote: <p>Well, it wasn't supposed to be a direct attack on Kendricke. As you noted, I agreed with many of the posts I thought he made (with all the posting, quoting and reposting I lost the thread there when cutting/pasting). It was ironic and perhaps unfortunate that those posts I agreed with were made by someone else.</p> <p>...</p> <p> He just needs to be more conciliatory in the way he says things and if he was it would cut back on so much of the flaming on these boards.</p> <hr></blockquote>Ah, a misunderstanding then ^_^. One question, what's conciliatory mean? Consistent?</span><div></div>

Andu

12-05-2005, 06:10 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Quijonsith wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, a misunderstanding then ^_^. One question, what's conciliatory mean? Consistent?</SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Diplomatic. Less abrasive.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But yeah - consistency in his posts would also be welcome <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV><p>Message Edited by Anduri on <span class=date_text>12-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:10 AM</span>

Kendricke

12-05-2005, 07:34 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR>The thing I have noticed is that the mage lives only if I have just cast group reactive before the mage gets aggro. In that case I have enough time to heal and stun so that the mage lives as the procs generally mean that the mage can take that one extra hit. If I dont have group reactive up, well, it is rezzing time.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Three emergency heals, direct heals, and Reverence say that my mages almost never die unless I want them to (and yes, I will give a mage warnings in my groups if they're grabbing hate). I almost never cast a reactive on a mage, and certainly not for saving them once they've gained hate. Often, I'll drop a Sign and possibly a stun to give the fighter time to gain back the hate if it's particularly difficult. In a worst case scenario, I'll drop a Harmony on the encounter.</P> <P>Then again, most fighters I know just use Rescue if the situation's that bad. </P> <P> </P>

Kendricke

12-05-2005, 07:54 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR> <P><SPAN>“If you, as a Templar, are placing yourself and your group in "any old grouping situation", then my question would be "why"?” - Kendricke</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Because many of us don’t have the time and option to play any other way. You are very fortunate to have a guild around you and a large base of friends. Can you hear yourself? You are suggesting in this sentence that Templars should have to arrange their own groups and pick targets specifically so that we can express ourselves properly. Well, you may have the amount of time available to be able to do this but most of us don’t. Most of us are happy just to get into “any old group”. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>If a class, any class, in this game has to go to the lengths you are suggesting here then surely it’s blindingly obvious that something is wrong. If you as a person have to suggest these things then isn’t it obvious that the position you are taking in all this is fundamentally flawed?</SPAN></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If the developers had attempted to balance the game around soloing capabilities, then yes, I'd agree with you. However, they stated that they balanced the game around full groups - not soloing, not duoing, not raiding - but full groups. That's where gameplay has always been encouraged. </P> <P>Other styles exist certainly, but the balance was not based around that. I'm not going to apologize for building up a strong guild and having a large base of friendships. I realize that other Templars here apparantly don't have access to (what is in my mind) basic fundamentals of a massively multiplayer game, however that's how the game is effectively played to best efficiency for some classes. </P> <P>We're not the only class that does better in groups. We're not the only class that doesn't do as well in soloing or duoing. It doesn't mean we can't solo. It doesn't mean we have to group. However, if the argument is being made about speed levelling, or how fast we can bring in experience...that's a different playstyle altogether from mine. </P> <P> </P>

Andu

12-05-2005, 07:59 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR> <P><SPAN>“If you, as a Templar, are placing yourself and your group in "<FONT color=#ff3300>any old <STRONG><U>grouping</U></STRONG> situation</FONT>", then my question would be "why"?” - Kendricke</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Because many of us don’t have the time and option to play any other way. You are very fortunate to have a guild around you and a large base of friends. Can you hear yourself? You are suggesting in this sentence that Templars should have to arrange their own groups and pick targets specifically so that we can express ourselves properly. Well, you may have the amount of time available to be able to do this but most of us don’t. Most of us are happy just to get into “any old group”. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>If a class, any class, in this game has to go to the lengths you are suggesting here then surely it’s blindingly obvious that something is wrong. If you as a person have to suggest these things then isn’t it obvious that the position you are taking in all this is fundamentally flawed?</SPAN></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If the developers had attempted to balance the game around soloing capabilities, then yes, I'd agree with you. However, they stated that they balanced the game around full groups - not soloing, not duoing, not raiding - but full groups. That's where gameplay has always been encouraged. </P> <P>Other styles exist certainly, but the balance was not based around that. I'm not going to apologize for building up a strong guild and having a large base of friendships. I realize that other Templars here apparantly don't have access to (what is in my mind) basic fundamentals of a massively multiplayer game, however that's how the game is effectively played to best efficiency for some classes. </P> <P>We're not the only class that does better in groups. We're not the only class that doesn't do as well in soloing or duoing. It doesn't mean we can't solo. It doesn't mean we have to group. However, if the argument is being made about speed levelling, or how fast we can bring in experience...that's a different playstyle altogether from mine. </P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>For gods sake who mentioned soloing? I have highlighted the relevant part as you seem to have forgotten what it was you typed.</P> <P>Although I would also refer to my points about solo content which you have conveniently ignored.<BR></P>

Kendricke

12-05-2005, 08:03 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote: <P>As for my last comments, I really am trying to help Ken. It's that sort of waffle that gets people wound up with him. I agree with a fair chunk of what he says and have repeatedly said so. He just needs to be more conciliatory in the way he says things and if he was it would cut back on so much of the flaming on these boards.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Though I appreciate the intention, it's hardly necessary. Worry about my points, not about helping me. You may feel I'm doing badly here...but I feel completely differently. The flaming isn't my fault...but rather the fault of those who do the flaming. You would do better perhaps to assist them in ceasing in violating board rules. </P> <P>As far as myself, if my style of posting is something you disagree with...and yet the developers don't seem to mind, then I'll continue to post as I have, regardless of whether you or others appreciate my particular style or tone. I can't convince everyone that what I'm seeing is right. All I can do is continue to point out what I see and work from there.</P> <P>Keep in mind that the exact same tone I employ here is the same one I use on the Guild Discussion forums. Yet, there's no public outcry there that I'm somehow working against the community or trying to keep us "held back". The difference there is the community...not Kendricke. Apparantly one community's "abrasive" is another community's "good job". </P> <P>P.S. - I receive daily private messages from Templars on these forums who continue to tell me to keep posting as I have. Some of whom have already applied to join the Legion - some from other servers, mind you. I'm not alone in my opinions, but even if I were I'd continue to speak out on what I perceive to be correct. Feel free to disagree with me, but to attempt to discredit or downplay me as some sort of fringe element is simply not true. </P> <P><BR> </P>

Kendricke

12-05-2005, 08:05 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Quijonsith wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, a misunderstanding then ^_^. One question, what's conciliatory mean? Consistent?</SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Diplomatic. Less abrasive.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But yeah - consistency in his posts would also be welcome <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Concilliatory means to gain goodwill by pleasing acts, or to placate through compromise - to appease.</P> <P>I'm not here to appease. I'm here to speak my mind civilly on a subject that's of great importance to me. If you find my opinions and findings something you can't agree with, then I welcome the chance to debate the points with respect. However, I'll not be downplaying my points simply for the sake of placating those who disagree with me or those who seem to have taken the fight to some "next level" where I become the target rather than my arguments.</P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P>

Kendricke

12-05-2005, 08:08 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR> <P><SPAN>“If you, as a Templar, are placing yourself and your group in "<FONT color=#ff3300>any old <STRONG><U>grouping</U></STRONG> situation</FONT>", then my question would be "why"?” - Kendricke</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Because many of us don’t have the time and option to play any other way. You are very fortunate to have a guild around you and a large base of friends. Can you hear yourself? You are suggesting in this sentence that Templars should have to arrange their own groups and pick targets specifically so that we can express ourselves properly. Well, you may have the amount of time available to be able to do this but most of us don’t. Most of us are happy just to get into “any old group”. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>If a class, any class, in this game has to go to the lengths you are suggesting here then surely it’s blindingly obvious that something is wrong. If you as a person have to suggest these things then isn’t it obvious that the position you are taking in all this is fundamentally flawed?</SPAN></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If the developers had attempted to balance the game around soloing capabilities, then yes, I'd agree with you. However, they stated that they balanced the game around full groups - not soloing, not duoing, not raiding - but full groups. That's where gameplay has always been encouraged. </P> <P>Other styles exist certainly, but the balance was not based around that. I'm not going to apologize for building up a strong guild and having a large base of friendships. I realize that other Templars here apparantly don't have access to (what is in my mind) basic fundamentals of a massively multiplayer game, however that's how the game is effectively played to best efficiency for some classes. </P> <P>We're not the only class that does better in groups. We're not the only class that doesn't do as well in soloing or duoing. It doesn't mean we can't solo. It doesn't mean we have to group. However, if the argument is being made about speed levelling, or how fast we can bring in experience...that's a different playstyle altogether from mine. </P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>For gods sake who mentioned soloing? I have highlighted the relevant part as you seem to have forgotten what it was you typed.</P> <P>Although I would also refer to my points about solo content which you have conveniently ignored.<BR></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>If you're in a full group, then go take on more challenging content...or at least take on the "any ole" content faster. Bring that content in as fast as you can possibly handle...then try to bring it in just a bit faster even still. That - THAT's where Templars shine, at the cutting edge of what's possible in single groups.</P> <P>If you're arguing that our healing abilities are wasted in group situations, that's my response. Time online has nothing to do with it. If anything, you would be spending your online time better if you were able to handle more content or more challenging content in the same amount of time.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

Quijonsith

12-05-2005, 08:15 PM

Even thought I suggested the same thing as you just did, ken, I'd like to go ahead and throw out a rebuttel. If the content we're fighting is to easy, bringing it in faster will only help so much. I've had plenty of times where the content died so fast that I had loads of power left over while the rest of the group was very low after enough pulls because lil damage is taken over all and GoC and the fate line do enough healing to save me mana. I then definitely push for harder content. I feel that I shouldn't have to do this to feel usefull though. Like I said before, I think all heroic mobs in general need an HP boost. <div></div>

Caethre

12-05-2005, 08:56 PM

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <P>That's one area of opinion where you and I differ most dramatically. Your 95% scenario is a small fraction of my weekly online time. During the Desert of Flames update and again for a few weeks after the Revamp went live, I realized that we'd changed subtely, but in very important ways. I started grouping with more and more melee groups, and started to search out heavy group situations where my added reliance upon healing functionality would be more effective (rather than simply preloading 3 or more reactives prior to each pull). </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>As I've said before, good for you. But the LU13 destroyed the game for me (and many others), from a Templar perspective. I am very unhappy about this, which is why I (and others) keep posting on the issue. The developers made a mistake, and only through contrinued feedback that the current situation is unacceptable to a significant proportion of Templars, will it get corrected.</FONT></P> <P>I started experimenting more with the new Sign line (especially in conjunction with Prostrate line, and even Soothe) to help out smaller groups I'd join to handle more dangerous areas. I toyed with casting multiple instances of Glory of Combat (which I couldn't do prior to the Revamp) and I started to make better use of planning out my heals rather than just "spamcasting" (as I did prior to the revamp). </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I've experiemented with these too, but I have found them wanting in the types of settings I play in. A far better solution has proven to be ... re-roll as a Fury. That makes my groups faster than ANYTHING I can do as a Templar. This is not acceptable, and needs correction, and hence the (continued) posts.</FONT></P> <P>This worked for me. Yes, our effectiveness was cut in the revamp, just as was done to other previously overpowered classes. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>This is where you are wrong, and the developers are wrong, and just saying 'the developers did it therefore it is right' is just being a fanboy.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>We were not overpowered before the LU13, we were in my view balanced sensibly for a cleric class at that time. I am not saying other classes did not need changes, and I am also certainly not saying that heroic encounters were not too trivial then (they were, perhaps even they still are, but that's another subject), but I will not accept we were overpowered. One *might* argue that Wardens were slightly overpowered, but even that is debatable. We were head and shoulders above Furies (and others) as healers. That is where I personally feel we SHOULD be, *if* we are to have much lower DPS. Alternatively, they should have balanced DPS when they balanced healing.</FONT></P> <P>However, we're still effective. Not just in the "right" situations, but in most situations. If you're finding yourself in those wrong situations most of the time, then you need to alter your style of play to encourage finding more of the right situation to be in. Warlocks had to adapt...so did Swashbucklers...and Guardians...and Illusionists...and Conjurors...and pretty much every other class in Norrath. Why should Templars be different in that regard? </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Yes, we are still "effective", in hardcore groups, if you do not look at the big picture. We are still "effective" as long as you pretend the Fury class does not exist. Sorry, you can do that, in your protected guild groups, but not all of us can or want to. Despite your claims to the contrary, you never look at the big picture for all playstyles. Telling me and hundreds of others to just "like it or re-roll and shut up", as you always seem to be saying, is just slapping us in the face. The devs made an error. They will correct it when it gets through to them that they made it.</FONT></P> <P>Sure, the revamp may not have worked for you. However, to state we're useless in 95% of situations? ...or that we're "broken"? Well, I think the designers know that we're not...and the thousands of Templars I believe are logging in each night are a testament to the fact that the class is far from unpopular or unplayable. Many Templars may not like the idea of "control" being part of our new utility. I do. If that places me in the minority, then so be it. It's the new design. It's the intended design, if the developers are to be believed.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Now you are putting words into my mouth. I didnt say "useless in 95% of situations". I said, broken, and it seems you didnt and still do not understand the context. The context is - in 95% of situations (actually more like 99%), for me, playing my Fury would mean my groups did better than playing my Templar. Faster XP. More loot. More contribution. More fun. Better, in every sense that matters. It doesn't mean the Templar cannot heal the group, yes, of course she can. It means - her contribution will be lower, noticeably lower, and I will feel like an XP leech. Is this getting through yet? This is not balanced. I should be able to play either character and bring the same level of overall contribution to the group either way. Right now, I can't.</FONT></P> <P>If this new design doesn't work for your playstyle, then you've likely done the right thing in finding a class which does work for you. Honestly, I've had members who were fed up with the game till they switched classes (had two Beserkers consider quitting the game pre-revamp...then they picked up a Conjuror and a Warlock post-revamp and they're happy as can be now; had a Monk change to Templar; had another Monk change to Dirge; and a Troubadour change to Guardian). Changes occured. Playstyles altered. Players adapted. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I disagree. I believe that the right thing for now was to make a Fury yes, but the main thrust of the "right thing" to do is FEEDBACK, consistantly, and get the message through to SoE that the class is broken for some players and needs attention in those domains. Just giving up, shutting up and quietly crawling away and playing another class, is not my style, as you very well know by now. And so this message will keep on coming - it is simply NOT ACCEPTABLE to me to change a class ten months after launch so that it goes from fun and playable for a given playstyle to dull, boring and all-round inferior to another priest in that same playstyle. What I do not need is someone who isn't even playing the way I do, who really doesnt appreciate just how much stronger some priests are than templars in that playstyle, keeping on obfuscating the message from so many of us with a consistant "we are ok, ignore the whiners" smokescreen, which is far from the actual truth.</FONT> </P> <P>Furies have always, always, always been faster at soloing than Templars. Always. If you were soloing as a Templar prior to the revamp, you were unable to keep up with a Fury of comparable level, gear, and player ability. This did not change after the revamp. The fastest levelling member of my own guild was a pre-revamp Fury...and he soloed most of that. Even duoing, Furies have always been able to put more DPS into their groups than Templars. </P> <P>This argument could have been made 6 months ago and held the same relevance. The revamp didn't create a situation where Furies could solo or duo faster. That's always been the case.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Yes, but you ignore the fact that to balance their greater DPS Utility and solo power, their heals were weak, and they could struggle keeping even a normal group alive. That was not "unfair", it was balanced. Now, they can do it all.</FONT></P> <P>In fact, prior to the revamp, I used to group with a Guardian that was virtually indestrucable once we'd both completed buffing. On more than one occasion, he'd invite me out to Temple of Cazic Thule and tell me that he simply needed my buffs...and he'd proceed to solo white or yellow heroic groups all by himself with me simply sitting on as a bystander. Of course I'd help out, but prior to the revamp, Guardians and Templars were Gods among mortals. I'd watch entire groups wipe near us while we continued to slaughter the same encounters as a duo. We simply were untouchable. </P> <P>To myself, this seemed completely contrary to intended design announcements prior to and during initial release. At the first Summit, this subject came up a lot...and we were informed quite a bit that this would no longer be the case post-revamp. We were told clearly (and this was repeated in many write-ups on the subject) that the days of such wild class disparity was coming to an end. </P> <P>Now, more to the point is the fact that Templars can solo effectively. We're not as efficient as most classes, but the option exists. For myself, this is simply more of the playstyle that is expected from Templars. If fast experience is truly what a Templar desires, then form up in those challenging groups I keep recommending and then push for faster, harder pulls. In those situations, I'm truly able to stretch my proverbial wings and soar. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Solo effectively? What on earth do YOU call effectively??? Im sorry, effectively means to me, solo as well as other priests. If we solo at half or less the rate of Furies, then that is not effective in my eyes, end of discussion. It is all relative, always.</FONT></P> <P>No, we're not the best soloers. We never have been. Then again, the discussion here was based on who is the best healer...and though there may exist some situations wherein I'm not the best choice, I tend to find those situations (for myself) are few and far between. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>No, the discussion is, who is the best PRIEST. Some people focus, as is their right, on the healing side of things, but I personally have almost given up on the idea that SoE will ever restore Clerics to their (IMO rightful) position as the best healers (by far), so have de facto adopted the position of calling for equality across other areas. But I would be very pleased if SoE did indeed go the other way - anything to stop this "we are at best equal and at worst inferior" situation we have now.<BR></FONT></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Felishanna [53 Templar]<BR>Annaelisa [50 Fury]<BR>

Andu

12-05-2005, 08:57 PM

<SPAN> <P><SPAN>In response to Kendricke:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><STRONG>Though I appreciate the intention, it's hardly necessary.</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>It IS necessary though because every thread you enter descends into flaming shortly thereafter. You clearly see this as people posting against you because they disagree with the contents on what you post. I can see that the large majority of it is people disagreeing with you because of the WAY that you post it. If you did at least try to make your points in a way that doesn’t get on people goat then half the flaming on this board would vanish and we could have a more civilised and logical discussion of the issues. Just to reiterate what I have said before – I agree with you on many points.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I would also stress that this is not some personal attack on you I’m making, just a plea to you to try and change the way you come over.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><STRONG>Worry about my points, not about helping me.</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I worry about some of your points and when I do I post about them. I just wish you would respond on the issues that matter, not the ones you feel you can “win”.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><STRONG>You may feel I'm doing badly here...but I feel completely differently.</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I don’t care one way or the other how you feel you are doing.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><STRONG>The flaming isn't my fault...but rather the fault of those who do the flaming.<SPAN> </SPAN>You would do better perhaps to assist them in ceasing in violating board rules.</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Well, I would gladly ask people to stop flaming you. I'll do it now - please stop flaimg Kendricke. I would agree a lot of it is unnecessary. I just felt that it might be more effective to get to the root of the problem as it were.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><STRONG>...and yet the developers don't seem to mind</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Well Raijinn has deleted some of your responses. Then again he has deleted some of mine as well. He can be a little overzealous at times I guess.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><STRONG>Keep in mind that the exact same tone I employ here is the same one I use on the Guild Discussion forums.</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>No, and I do applaud the work you are putting in in that forum. I just wish things could be as constructive here. That is what I’m driving at when I say conciliatory. I’m not after appeasement (that is such an emotive word and not one that I used) but I’m just looking for a little more compromise in the way you post. Whether you like it or not you are not right on everything you post about and if you recognised this and were willing to shift your views appropriately then I would think we could move on as a community.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I’m more than happy to shift mine if you can convince me I’m wrong, or at least point out errors in my arguments.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><STRONG>Apparantly one community's "abrasive" is another community's "good job".</STRONG><SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Guild discussion is a lot easier to get consensus on. People are far more sensitive about the class they play than about guild issues. Apart from anything, there is no competition in the way there is between classes. We all have the same guild system to work within.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><STRONG>If you find my opinions and findings something you can't agree with, then I welcome the chance to debate the points with respect.</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I welcome the debate – will you please just respond to some of the more pertinent points though and we can get on with it :smileyhappy:</SPAN></SPAN></P>

Andu

12-05-2005, 09:06 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Quijonsith wrote:<BR>Even thought I suggested the same thing as you just did, ken, I'd like to go ahead and throw out a rebuttel. If the content we're fighting is to easy, bringing it in faster will only help so much. I've had plenty of times where the content died so fast that I had loads of power left over while the rest of the group was very low after enough pulls because lil damage is taken over all and GoC and the fate line do enough healing to save me mana. I then definitely push for harder content. I feel that I shouldn't have to do this to feel usefull though. Like I said before, I think all heroic mobs in general need an HP boost.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><SPAN>Exactly. In grouping terms, yellow heroics are too easy. They die so fast that we cannot get off our utility healing effectively.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Orange</SPAN><SPAN> are harder but they were made harder by artificial means and it feels that way. The step up from yellow to orange is only one level but it feels like a chasm. This is because of numbers thrown into the equation at the last minute to make them resist everything – not because of a logical system of combat that gets harder naturally as levels increase.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>So we generally find we have two options, fight yellow heroics that die too fast or fight orange heroics that resist all our debuffs far too frequently.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Either way its very frustrating.</SPAN></P>

Kendricke

12-05-2005, 09:06 PM

<P><FONT color=#ffff00>"Now you are putting words into my mouth." - Caethre</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>"Telling me and hundreds of others to just "like it or re-roll and shut up", as you always seem to be saying, is just slapping us in the face." -Caethre</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>"...and just saying 'the developers did it therefore it is right' is just being a fanboy." - Caethre</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>"...keeping on obfuscating the message from so many of us with a consistant "we are ok, ignore the whiners" smokescreen..." -Caethre</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

Caethre

12-05-2005, 09:24 PM

<DIV>OOC.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes, Kendricke, despite just taking lines and putting them together without the context, so making them appear more stark, that is precisely the message you are seemingly putting across, in all your thousands of posts.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I could do the same thing with your posts, but unlike you, I see no point in playing message board warrior.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I just want my class fixed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Quijonsith

12-05-2005, 09:28 PM

<span><blockquote><div></div></blockquote></span><span>Kendricke, and I hate to make this post as now things really are getting off topic, what I got out of reading your responses to the above posters is that you don't care how you come across to people. That's why you get flaimed so much. Yes, the people who post the flaims are technically responsible for making the posts. However, if you look through my posts I haven't received a single flaim even when I disagree with people. When people discuss a topic from different points of view, everyone needs to be able to atleast understand the other sides from their own. Not necessarily agree, but at the very least understand. Debates are give and take, not my way or the highway. Excercise a little tact and the flaiming would stop and these threads wouldn't degenerate as much, except for those insistent on flaiming regardless.</span> <div></div>

Andu

12-05-2005, 09:42 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>"Now you are putting words into my mouth." - Caethre</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>"Telling me and hundreds of others to just "like it or re-roll and shut up", as you always seem to be saying, is just slapping us in the face." -Caethre</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>"...and just saying 'the developers did it therefore it is right' is just being a fanboy." - Caethre</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>"...keeping on obfuscating the message from so many of us with a consistant "we are ok, ignore the whiners" smokescreen..." -Caethre</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>What on earth was this supposed to achieve?</P> <P>You have asked for us to make our points clearly and concisely and in a non-flaming manner. This we have done so. You now ignore them and post this ... what point you are trying to make is lost on me.</P> <P>Please can you focus on the class issues raised in either Caethre or my posts.</P>

Caethre

12-05-2005, 09:47 PM

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR>Please can you focus on the class issues raised in either Caethre or my posts.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>He never ever does. Timaarit has asked him dozens of precise questions on multiple threads, yet all he does is attack him and play semantic games, and never answer the questions.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I can honestly say, I have absolutely no idea what his agenda is. Why a Templar would fight so hard as he does, against other Templars who are trying to get the class fixed (even if he finds in his playstyle he is not suffering like some of us are) is a real mystery to me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Xaax

12-05-2005, 09:53 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Kendricke wrote:</P> <P>If the developers had attempted to balance the game around soloing capabilities, then yes, I'd agree with you. However, they stated that they balanced the game around full groups - not soloing, not duoing, not raiding - but full groups. That's where gameplay has always been encouraged. </P> <P>and</P> <P>If you're in a full group, then go take on more challenging content...or at least take on the "any ole" content faster. Bring that content in as fast as you can possibly handle...then try to bring it in just a bit faster even still. That - THAT's where Templars shine, at the cutting edge of what's possible in single groups.</P> <P>If you're arguing that our healing abilities are wasted in group situations, that's my response. Time online has nothing to do with it. If anything, you would be spending your online time better if you were able to handle more content or more challenging content in the same amount of time.</P> <P> </P> <P><SPAN><FONT size=3><FONT color=#66ff66>I am a little confused by this, if Templars are balanced by full groups that cut through mobs in 10 seconds or less in most cases how are spells like MoK and Invol Curate balanced at all? Pulling 15 mobs is not the problem, healing our group with 15 mobs isn’t the problem, keeping any debuff on them other then a fate every now and then is a problem. Our utility needs a serious looking at, if not the spells themselves then the cast/recast timers on them.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT size=3><FONT color=#66ff66>I also think that the timer on our fast heal is way to slow, when a mage rips agro, If he lasts longer then 2 seconds he tends to live but if he doesn’t last that 2 seconds it takes to cast our quick heal then he tends to be dead. I really think that our 2 seconds heals should be on a 1 second cast timer, even it it would cost more mana.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE>

Andu

12-05-2005, 10:09 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR> <P><SPAN>In response to some of the latest comments:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>“To myself, this seemed completely contrary to intended design announcements prior to and during initial release.<SPAN> </SPAN>At the first </SPAN><SPAN>Summit</SPAN><SPAN>, this subject came up a lot...and we were informed quite a bit that this would no longer be the case post-revamp.<SPAN> </SPAN>We were told clearly (and this was repeated in many write-ups on the subject) that the days of such wild class disparity was coming to an end.” - Kendricke</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>This is the bit that causes so much resentment on this board because it is clear that our so called representatives at the time didn’t have the insight to see that if all healing classes were going to be brought into line in terms of healing, then other areas in which Templars are weak would also need to be improved in compensation.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>In fact, the dogmatic way in which you repeat that “all is well” is likely due to this. To accept there is now a problem would be to suggest that you failed to represent Templars properly when it might have counted. Which, whether that is fair or not, many here think you did.</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Anduri on <SPAN class=date_text>12-05-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>05:07 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>He didn't respond to this Caethre. I don't know if there is any truth here or not but it is the only thing I can think of.<BR> <p>Message Edited by Anduri on <span class=date_text>12-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:10 AM</span>

Kendricke

12-05-2005, 10:56 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>"Now you are putting words into my mouth." - Caethre</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>"Telling me and hundreds of others to just "like it or re-roll and shut up", as you always seem to be saying, is just slapping us in the face." -Caethre</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>"...and just saying 'the developers did it therefore it is right' is just being a fanboy." - Caethre</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>"...keeping on obfuscating the message from so many of us with a consistant "we are ok, ignore the whiners" smokescreen..." -Caethre</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>What on earth was this supposed to achieve?</P> <P>You have asked for us to make our points clearly and concisely and in a non-flaming manner. This we have done so. You now ignore them and post this ... what point you are trying to make is lost on me.</P> <P>Please can you focus on the class issues raised in either Caethre or my posts.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm being accused of putting words in Caethre's mouth in a post with several little digs and quips which actually attribute entire erroneous statements to myself. I've never once said "like it or re-roll and shut up", nor have I stated "the developers did it therefore it is right", nor "we are ok, ignore the whiners". </P> <P>It's exactly this type of hyperbole and distraction that I feel is the real smokescreen here. Constantly, I'm told that my class is broken, unplayable, or useless...when I'm picked up in random groups night after night, or when I'm constantly assisting guildmates in zone after zone. </P> <P>I'm told that spells like our Signs and stuns are "useless" when I'm able to use them in small duo or trio situations to outright lock down adds completely (alternate between timed Sign of Infirmitys and Enforced Reverences and a target effectively becomes permanently locked). I'm actually considered a preferred puller in many of our heavy grind groups because I can pull with Sign in advance, and let the tank build up hate without worrying about extra attacks coming in. </P> <P>I'm told that my extra heal utility is again "worthless" and yet I've actually used them alone to completely keep a group healed. On Test server also (where I maintain an additional Tier V Templar), I've sent in full reports of logged parses which show Glory of Combat alone keeping melee heavy groups standing...without any additional healing required. I've used a single Involuntary Healer in certain groups or raids to effectively provide additional thousands and even tens of thousands of heals coming in on an entire force.</P> <P>I'm told that I have no DPS contribution in groups, when in fact I've shown that I can increase melee heavy group DPS by 10-25% just by casting Admonishment. That's another 300-500 DPS in many groups - hardly something I've overlook as a contribution.</P> <P>Yes, I'd like changes. Yes, I agree that there's work to be done. However, it's just beyond my ken how anyone can say that Templars are useless, worthless, broken, or unplayable. That's simply not the case...and I'm certain the developers can see this. </P> <P>Continue to do whatever it is you each feel is the best way to convince the developers that change is needed. I'll continue to do what I do. If you don't like what I'm doing, then feel free to ignore it, refute it, or deride it - just ask yourself if doing so will help you gain the goals you each want for the class. </P> <P>I'm sure it's personally satisfying to slam another player for using a tone, a style, or words you may not like. Personally, I feel it's a distraction from the issues that do exist which face our class. We're not going to convince the developers change is needed by slamming on each other, slamming on them, or slamming on disagreement in general. Accept that not everyone will agree and move forward from that. Point out what you like...and try to back such statements with supporting facts or experiences. </P> <P>Then again, I could be completely wrong. I might not know a thing about what I'm talking about here. Why listen to me, right? Make up your own minds on what you do or do not like. Run your own parses. Send in your own feedback. Draw your own conclusions. </P> <P>Frankly, the idea of a "best" healer is relative and completely subjective. We may as well discuss the "best" MMORPG. Everyone's right - regardless of what choice they have regarding the issue. Perception is reality, after all.</P> <P> </P>

Kendricke

12-05-2005, 11:03 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR> <P><SPAN>In response to some of the latest comments:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>“To myself, this seemed completely contrary to intended design announcements prior to and during initial release.<SPAN> </SPAN>At the first </SPAN><SPAN>Summit</SPAN><SPAN>, this subject came up a lot...and we were informed quite a bit that this would no longer be the case post-revamp.<SPAN> </SPAN>We were told clearly (and this was repeated in many write-ups on the subject) that the days of such wild class disparity was coming to an end.” - Kendricke</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>This is the bit that causes so much resentment on this board because it is clear that our so called representatives at the time didn’t have the insight to see that if all healing classes were going to be brought into line in terms of healing, then other areas in which Templars are weak would also need to be improved in compensation.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>In fact, the dogmatic way in which you repeat that “all is well” is likely due to this. To accept there is now a problem would be to suggest that you failed to represent Templars properly when it might have counted. Which, whether that is fair or not, many here think you did.</SPAN></P> <P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>He didn't respond to this Caethre. I don't know if there is any truth here or not but it is the only thing I can think of.<BR> <P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I never claimed to represent Templars. Not one player at the Summit was informed exactly why they were chosen, save to tell us that we were selected based on our general tone and timbre within the forums, that we tend to avoid personal attacks, and that we bring up points more often than not. The exact phrase "signal to noise ratio" was relayed to me by more than one developer when I specifically asked why I, of all players, was in Vegas speaking to them about issues I felt of importance.</P> <P>Frankly, I didn't go under the impression that I was there to discuss Templars - certainly not with Tamat and Xrande sitting across the room from me during the Sessions. My burning questions revolved around general gaming and guild administration. I brought up several concerns regarding how much time I spend as a Guildmaster in game working on guild issues...rather than actually playing. Guilds - especially large, old guilds such as mine - don't just run themselves. </P> <P>If you want to blame me for not bringing up the correct issues, then that's your choice to make. I've stated clearly time and again that I do not nor have I ever represented Templars as a community. I represent myself and my guild and that's the extent of my authority.</P> <P>NOTE: I don't believe "all is well". I simply don't feel the situation is nearly as dire as some here would have me and others believe. </P> <P><BR> </P>

Lydiae

12-05-2005, 11:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV>Kendrike wrote:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, we're still effective. Not just in the "right" situations, but in most situations. If you're finding yourself in those wrong situations most of the time, then you need to alter your style of play to encourage finding more of the right situation to be in. Warlocks had to adapt...so did Swashbucklers...and Guardians...and Illusionists...and Conjurors...and pretty much every other class in Norrath. Why should Templars be different in that regard?</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No, no, no, no, no. This is misguided. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Altering my playstyle should mean altering my tactics, not they the way I have to or choose to spend my time online. I solo quite a bit because I'm in a small guild I like and because my time available can be cut short for reasons beyond my control. (Family, job, etc.) I'm also not too keen on pick-up groups.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Any Templar who solos much will tell you we are noticably less effective at it than prior to LU13. That shouldn't be the case. I should not have to change the situations I place myself in, that's changing the basics tenets of the game for me. It's also a change in the philosophy that drew me to the game in the first place. I loved the flexibility to group when I could and solo when I couldn't.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Before anyone tells me I was a fool to play a Tempar if I expected to solo a lot, I will tell you I knew that going in, I know I will level faster and show my true potential in a group. I don't care. I like to play a cleric in any RPG I can, on or offline, because I love the class and the ideas behind it. I was perfectly happy with my lot in alternate life before LU13, and now I get bored. I'm just not as eager to log on as I was, which is a shame becasue I really like this game and the world SOE created. I had the option to tradeskill, (which I also love) and I took it a lot, but since I made level 60 as a weaponsmith, that's gone. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All I want is what I had before. I don't expect to be the best solo class, I would be more than happy to be as effective as we were before. Is there something wrong with that? I don't think so.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(edited for clarity)</DIV><p>Message Edited by Lydiaele on <span class=date_text>12-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:35 PM</span>

Caethre

12-06-2005, 12:42 AM

<DIV>OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>I'm being accused of putting words in Caethre's mouth in a post with several little digs and quips which actually attribute entire erroneous statements to myself. I've never once said "like it or re-roll and shut up", nor have I stated "the developers did it therefore it is right", nor "we are ok, ignore the whiners". </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>You imply those statements in so many of your posts, I find it hard to believe you have the gall here to deny it. I could find fifty references in your thousands of posts that effectively say "templars are basically fine, anyone who disagrees is a whiner" if I could find one. I see no point in doing so though, because once again, I do not post to boost my ego, I post in the hope of highlighting issues with the Templar class, nothing else. I have no idea why you post, however.</FONT></P> <P>It's exactly this type of hyperbole and distraction that I feel is the real smokescreen here. Constantly, I'm told that my class is broken, unplayable, or useless...when I'm picked up in random groups night after night, or when I'm constantly assisting guildmates in zone after zone. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>And here is an example. Referring once again to the genuine real observations of other players as merely "hyperbole". I recall it was "wild claims" and "exaggerations" last time. But the fact is, it is none of those things, and your referring to my observations, and those of hundreds of other Templar players, in such a demeaning way, is just throwing personal instults at us. I post the reality of playing Templar for me, it has never been "hyperbole" or "wild claims". Quijonsith's last post made it clear, he understood where I was coming from (even if he did not completely agree), but you alone, you either cannot or refuse to understand those who do not play as you do.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>From my perspective, I have felt compelled to re-roll as a Fury, in order to no longer feel a burden on friends or on groups I join, in my own playstyle. This was not true prior to LU13. If that is not "broken", then "broken" has a different meaning to you than it does to me.</FONT></P> <P>I'm told that spells like our Signs and stuns are "useless" when I'm able to use them in small duo or trio situations to outright lock down adds completely (alternate between timed Sign of Infirmitys and Enforced Reverences and a target effectively becomes permanently locked). I'm actually considered a preferred puller in many of our heavy grind groups because I can pull with Sign in advance, and let the tank build up hate without worrying about extra attacks coming in. </P> <P>I'm told that my extra heal utility is again "worthless" and yet I've actually used them alone to completely keep a group healed. On Test server also (where I maintain an additional Tier V Templar), I've sent in full reports of logged parses which show Glory of Combat alone keeping melee heavy groups standing...without any additional healing required. I've used a single Involuntary Healer in certain groups or raids to effectively provide additional thousands and even tens of thousands of heals coming in on an entire force.</P> <P>I'm told that I have no DPS contribution in groups, when in fact I've shown that I can increase melee heavy group DPS by 10-25% just by casting Admonishment. That's another 300-500 DPS in many groups - hardly something I've overlook as a contribution.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>tbd</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Ok, let's try this one more time, very calmly and slowly. And you have to resist the urge at the end of it, of telling me how to play the game or to change what I enjoy.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>It is pre-LU13.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I log on. I solo - slowly. I am worse than other priests, but I can live with that. Then I join a group with two friends, a paladin and a conjuror, the same level as me. We hunt (in any zone). We are all the same level (any level). We fight white con heroics (or maybe +1 level yellow cons). The paladin pulls and tanks and uses his arts as he sees fit. I buff, debuff if needed (usually not needed), I use a reactive or heals as needed, and with the rest of my power, I nuke and melee. The conjuror does his stuff as he sees fit.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>We get good XP. It is pretty straightforward, not especially challenging, but the pally can almost chain pull, and the small gaps between pulls are more than enough to recover the little power I'm using.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I never cast the lotto heals as ... simply put, I do not need them, the pally is easy to keep alive anyway without them. Besides, when I use them, they almost never fire.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>The key point, is I feel both happy and valued.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Swap me for a Fury at that time? Well, they can solo better, and outdamage me in that group, but the pally has to help heal, as what I could manage without stress, is a lot more difficult for the Fury at that time, their heals were weak. This seemed balanced to me. The group does no worse, but certainly no better. Of course, the SoW and Invis might be nice, and the pally loves the offensive buffs but misses the defensive ones. There are plusses and minuses.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I still feel valued. The group will not perform better if I am not there.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Now it is post LU13.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Suddenly I can solo even slower than before. The interrupts are making my kill rate even worse than it was. It has gone from really slow to painfully slow. So then I join my group again. It feels like before, in many ways, and that is because, in many ways, it is like before. My debuffs have gone, and my AC buffs, but I have received a mez spell that my group do not want me to use, as when I try it out, it just distracts from the job at hand and wastes power, is almost always resisted, and is not actually needed anyway, as I can easily heal the damage the mobs are doing anyway AND still get time to nuke and kill the main mob faster, so why bother?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>But it is not the same now, because of LU13 and LU15 and what those did for Furies. You see now, I disband and a Fury joins, and suddenly the group starts killing faster. No longer does the pally have to heal, the Fury can do everything the Templar can, but that extra power is nuking for 900s not 300s in the same time. The group gets XP faster.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>So my poor Templar now feels, oh my, my friends will do better without me, I should stay at home, not drag them down. They do not mind, of course, they see a friend, but *I* mind, I know I am dragging them back. So I level a Fury of my own, and prove this to be every bit as bad as I feared.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Kendricke, this is my reality. It is not hyperbole. It is not a wild claim. It is what I do, every day, when I play. You refer it as those things, you are throwing personal insults at me.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>It is no good replying to me " well hunt somewhere harder " or " find more friends who play scouts " or " well, Fury would suit you better now, why not swap? " or any of your usual advice.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>What I need and want is to lose that feeling of being a burden as a Templar, something that did not exist before LU13, without needing to be forced to change my playstyle or my character class.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>This is an honest post, and these are my true feelings. There is no "agenda". I want the fun back in my class.</FONT></P> <P>Yes, I'd like changes. Yes, I agree that there's work to be done. However, it's just beyond my ken how anyone can say that Templars are useless, worthless, broken, or unplayable. That's simply not the case...and I'm certain the developers can see this. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>After the above, if it is beyond your ken, it will always be. It is therefore a good job, it is not your ken we are relying on here.</FONT></P> <P>Continue to do whatever it is you each feel is the best way to convince the developers that change is needed. I'll continue to do what I do. If you don't like what I'm doing, then feel free to ignore it, refute it, or deride it - just ask yourself if doing so will help you gain the goals you each want for the class. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I am doing what I think is best for that end. Unfortunately, part of that has to be debunking your posts all the time, as you keep posting mistruths and nonsense. You keep implying the problem is not that major, but for some of us, it is so major that we felt forced to give up playing the class. If that is not major, what is???</FONT></P> <P>I'm sure it's personally satisfying to slam another player for using a tone, a style, or words you may not like. Personally, I feel it's a distraction from the issues that do exist which face our class. We're not going to convince the developers change is needed by slamming on each other, slamming on them, or slamming on disagreement in general. Accept that not everyone will agree and move forward from that. Point out what you like...and try to back such statements with supporting facts or experiences. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Slamming someone else is NOT fun. I get the impression it is something you enjoy - indeed, how can you not enjoy it, posting so many thousands of times. It cannot have escaped your attention all your threads become flamefests, now, can it? Why do you think that is? It is not like it is one person arguing with you, it is half of the community.</FONT></P> <P>Then again, I could be completely wrong. I might not know a thing about what I'm talking about here. Why listen to me, right? Make up your own minds on what you do or do not like. Run your own parses. Send in your own feedback. Draw your own conclusions. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>We do, and we have. How about you stop posting how we are all just making "wild claims" and "hyperbole" then? Or dropping in how when you chatted to developer X .. implying your opinion somehow matters more (which it does not).</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><p>Message Edited by Caethre on <span class=date_text>12-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:57 PM</span>

quetzaqotl

12-06-2005, 02:12 AM

<P>Sorry to come back in again but Caeth do you think that templars and furies were balanced pre cu?</P> <P>Ive seen this stated by multiple people saying we were balanced pre cu, I can say we were NOT furies/shamans were broken not broken as in unplayable but broken as in a dog with 2 1/2 legs (our healing pwr was borked our dps advantage wasnt big at all wardens outhealed us by far and did the same dmg or within a 1% range our dps enhancing wasnt as good as inq haste in raids there was no reason to put a fury in a raid whatsoever at that time) but I guess people saw this as balanced lol ah well this game post cu is nowhere as broken as it was pre cu.</P> <P>Some spells need some shaving the combat system isnt all that etc. but I think theres more balance now than there was before but that my opinion but Im sure you wont agree.</P> <p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>12-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:40 PM</span>

Aleph

12-06-2005, 02:57 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <DIV>OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Suddenly I can solo even slower than before. The interrupts are making my kill rate even worse than it was. It has gone from really slow to painfully slow. So then I join my group again. It feels like before, in many ways, and that is because, in many ways, it is like before. My debuffs have gone, and my AC buffs, but I have received a mez spell that my group do not want me to use, as when I try it out, it just distracts from the job at hand and wastes power, is almost always resisted, and is not actually needed anyway, as I can easily heal the damage the mobs are doing anyway AND still get time to nuke and kill the main mob faster, so why bother?</FONT></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <P>Message Edited by Caethre on <SPAN class=date_text>12-05-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>07:57 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I understand some of your concern, Caethre, especially with respect to soloing. On the other hand, I duo with a conjuror a lot. Other times I trio with a guardian and a conjuror. These groups are very similar to the ones you feel gimped in. We try to fight very difficult encounters, and the mitigation debuffs Kendricke mentioned before are tailor-made for the situation--my conjuror friends primary dps comes from his main pet and his fish pets, and both of those are physical damage. The tank will also do a bunch of physical damage. About 15% of all their damage is happening because the templar is there. I always feel that I'm holding my own in these fights. If I have time to add nukes, so much the better. </P> <P>I think you're selling your templar short in small groups. Just because your damage isn't popping over the mobs head in bright orange doesn't mean that it isn't happening, or that you aren't responsible for it. Granted, if the conjuror stays home and I duo with the guardian, things slow up dramatically (although the crowd control becomes very valuable and is something that a fury cannot provide). In this case the fury is a clear winner over the templar from a pure speed perspective. With a conjuror? I'm not so sure. The conjuror has much more dps than the fury does, and if he doesn't, well. . . furies should be nerfed, simple as that. Your 15% on top of that from the mit debuff may not be flashy like a 900 damage nuke, but it is significant.</P> <P>Other than that, my experiences just seem different. I use sign often, and without any resist trouble. Even if it is resisted, the cast time is so short that you can try it again a couple of seconds later. It lasts 16 seconds for about 90 power. That is 16 seconds without any incoming damage. If the mob is a yellow ^^^ heroic, that is a lot of damage that isn't happening because of your sign. If I stopped casting any spell just because it was resisted a few times, I wouldn't have any offensive spells on my hotbar.</P> <P>The problem with the mitigation debuff is that it doesn't help while solo. You can debuff your physical damage all you want, but 15% increase on 15-20 dps is still lousy. So you have a good case solo--not so good in small groups with a lot of physical damage, at least not as you presented it here. Swap the conjuror out with a wizard, and I think the fury will be better.</P> <P>I really think you underestimate the value of your sign line, though. Preventing a thousand hit points of damage from a tough add is not a distraction from the job at hand or a waste of power, and it can be done without all the fancy movement and footwork required to root-park something. If the conjuror is root-parking, he isn't doing damage, and your killing is being slowed down.</P> <P>To end, I wouldn't mind seeing a little more damage potential come the way of the templar, but I don't see things as bad as you seem to. Good luck with your fury. You seem to enjoy playing it, and you speak of it with an amazing passion.</P> <P>Alephin<BR></P>

Kendricke

12-06-2005, 03:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT color=#ffff00><EM>Now it is post LU13.</EM></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00><EM>Suddenly I can solo even slower than before. The interrupts are making my kill rate even worse than it was. It has gone from really slow to painfully slow. So then I join my group again. It feels like before, in many ways, and that is because, in many ways, it is like before. My debuffs have gone, and my AC buffs, but I have received a mez spell that my group do not want me to use, as when I try it out, it just distracts from the job at hand and wastes power, is almost always resisted, and is not actually needed anyway, as I can easily heal the damage the mobs are doing anyway AND still get time to nuke and kill the main mob faster, so why bother?</EM></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00><EM>But it is not the same now, because of LU13 and LU15 and what those did for Furies. You see now, I disband and a Fury joins, and suddenly the group starts killing faster. No longer does the pally have to heal, the Fury can do everything the Templar can, but that extra power is nuking for 900s not 300s in the same time. The group gets XP faster.</EM></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00><EM>So my poor Templar now feels, oh my, my friends will do better without me, I should stay at home, not drag them down. They do not mind, of course, they see a friend, but *I* mind, I know I am dragging them back. So I level a Fury of my own, and prove this to be every bit as bad as I feared.</EM></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00><EM>Kendricke, this is my reality. It is not hyperbole. It is not a wild claim. It is what I do, every day, when I play. You refer it as those things, you are throwing personal insults at me.</EM></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00><EM>It is no good replying to me " well hunt somewhere harder " or " find more friends who play scouts " or " well, Fury would suit you better now, why not swap? " or any of your usual advice.</EM></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oddly, I just grouped a Paladin/Conjuror trio Friday night in Permafrost. I was with Matthew (level 48 Paladin) and Libertinus (Level 47 Conjuror). Granted, I was the highest level in the group (level 54), but I realized quickly that I was able to not only heal everyone many times over on the average pull. I became a bit bored, so started pushing the group to pull faster. This wasn't working terribly well at first, till I asked if I could be charged with pulling. They both agreed and I started using Sign of Infirmity to pull. Since I wasn't stopping my targets' movement (just the ability for them to attack for 16 seconds), I would pull a new target right about the time I figured we'd be killing the previous target.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In addition, I kept Glory of Combat up on both the Paladin and the Conjuror's pet. I kept Sacred Redoubt and Divine Praetoreate up on the Paladin. On every target, I'd precast Admonishment and Involuntary Healer before the Paladin was even finished killing the previous target. I'd soothe wanderers who got too close when I didn't think we were able to keep up with it. If a kill was taking a bit tooo long, I'd also drop encforced reverence on the target which had Sign on it, when it got to around 2 seconds left on the spell's duration. I'd drop Warring Conviction on the Paladin's target from time to time, but for the most part, I was far too busy healing and controlling the situation to so much as think about casting anything else.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We were pulling FAST - very, very fast. There was no downtime. I had both of them firing off manastones and power shards every chance they could. They'd kill a target and move immediately to the new target I had parked there waiting for them. I'd fire off a few heals, a few debuffs, make sure everyone was ok, and start looking for the next target to pull. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There were several times it got pretty hairy - I mean HAIRY. We once accidently had four separate encounters on us. By alternating between heals, harmony, emergency heals, Sign, stuns, Salvation (TWICE during the fight), more heals, and Sign again...we made it out without any deaths. There were several times the pPladin would get stunned or the Conjuror would overcast and I'd suddenly have to drop a fast heal and reverence on the Conjuror till the Paladin could eventually taunt off the target. Yet, throughout it all, I never once heard anyone complaining that I wasn't keeping up.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As a little trio, they each pulled in over 40% experience in a little over 2 hours there in Permafrost. No potions...only vitality. On our third hour, they each dropped a veteran experience potion once they realized how fast it was coming in and each of them levelled. The Paladin had entered Permafrost with less than 50% experience and the Conjuror had slightly over 40%. In around 2 1/2 hours, they'd each earned around 60% experience in a three person group with just a broken, useless, worthless, unplayable Templar as their only healer/debuffer/crowd controller. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That's just my personal reality. It's as I recall it, but as always, logs are certainly available upon request. We had a ton of fun. Could they have possibly done better with a Fury? I personally doubt it, but it's possible. I simply don't think the Fury could have kept the healing up in that situation, and certainly it would have slowed down the group to have to pull between fights...but that's just my opinion on the subject. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Quijonsith

12-06-2005, 03:36 AM

Admittedly, there have been alot of times that I've felt like an XP leach (and I have used that term in game). Especially when there is another healer in the group. The only time I feel usefull when there is another healer in the group is when the tank is well equipped and there is enough DPS to take on seriously hard content (ie, orange ^^^'s). When I duo'd with a necro friend I fealt like a leach because even though I used rebuke and nuked, it just didn't feel satisfying. <div></div>

Quijonsith

12-06-2005, 03:42 AM

Ken, you missed the point entirely. Often I play the exact same way you just described, however I can atleast understand cae's situation. Why can't you? Posting your rebuttel as you have Cae no doubt found insulting. I know I would have. All he's looking for is a little understanding on your part. <div></div>

Aleph

12-06-2005, 03:50 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Quijonsith wrote:<BR>Admittedly, there have been alot of times that I've felt like an XP leach (and I have used that term in game). Especially when there is another healer in the group. The only time I feel usefull when there is another healer in the group is when the tank is well equipped and there is enough DPS to take on seriously hard content (ie, orange ^^^'s). When I duo'd with a necro friend I fealt like a leach because even though I used rebuke and nuked, it just didn't feel satisfying.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yeah, templars will never be backup healers. Not because our healing is necessarily better than the other healers, but because our offensive abilities are worse.

Kendricke

12-06-2005, 04:06 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Quijonsith wrote:<BR>Ken, you missed the point entirely. Often I play the exact same way you just described, however I can atleast understand cae's situation. Why can't you? Posting your rebuttel as you have Cae no doubt found insulting. I know I would have. All he's looking for is a little understanding on your part.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Well, I can't speak for Caethre as you have, but if I were Caethre, I'd probably be more offended to be referred to as a male than by seeing a differing point of view on a similar situation. </P> <P>What I posted was my reality. I'm not judging anyone else here, only offering a differing view. Some folks obviously feel differently about Templars than I do. That's their right. They can see the Templar as broken, useless, worthless, or unplayable all they wish. It's not going to affect my own view on the subject, however. </P> <P>You say that you want me to at least understand how someone can feel my class is "broken" in some situations? I do not understand this...not in any way I could state without truly offending anyone, at least. Personally, I feel that some of those who feel the class is truly broken simply do not understand the Templar in its current incarnation. Instead of truly giving it a good run, I think many of those Templars are simply opting to prove a point they want proven - that Templars are somehow incapable or unable to perform well in certain situations.</P> <P>The odd thing in this particular example is that the exact situation raised was the exact situation I found myself in all weekend. You see, Matthew is my roommate and I've mentioned this several times in several posts in several forums. We duo quite a bit as a holy warrior and a holy priest. Libertinus is a friend of mine I've known since college. On Friday, we just happened to group up. We grouped again on Saturday during the day. Again, last night. </P> <P>I'm not one to allow my own guild members to offer up excuses for failing in certain situations, and I'll admit to being a bit of a hard taskmaster toward those who join the Legion. We're not a militaristic raiding guild, but neither do I believe in giving up or quitting. I impart upon my members my own drive to find a way - however it's done. It works well in situations where we're going up against a tough challenge or raid target, and it works well when we're faced with adversity. I like to think it's a reason several of my guildmates have been with us for many years...not merely months. We don't give up. We find a way. There's always a way.</P> <P>So yes, when someone tells me that something's "broken", my hackles are raised and I'm going to show you how it's not. If someone tells me that something is impossible or unplayable or worthless, then again, I'll set out to show you just how impossible, unplayable, or worthless something really is.</P> <P>So, when you or anyone else tell me that I need to "understand" how some can see our class as broken, I hope you can "understand" exactly why I cannot. </P> <P>This, more than any other reason, is why I truly believe I've earned the respect of at least some of the developers and various members of the player community - that I do not give up and that I generally stay above the direct attacks and mudslinging which are so prevalent upon these forums at times. I don't feel it's necessary to have that respect and acknowledgement, but neither does that mean I do not appreciate that fact. That I've not earned the full respect of a certain segment of the Templar community is not going to hinder or change my methodologies. Frankly, lacking my respect or understanding should not hinder or change the methodologies of those who feel my views are incorrect. My approval is not required to disagree, just as I do not require the approval to do so from others. </P> <P>Ask yourself why it is you feel you require my understanding on this. Why is it you feel it's important for me of all people to understand? </P> <P>You don't. You don't need my approval, my understanding, my agreement, or even my acknowledgement. I'm just another player like yourselves. I'm just another person. Ignore the post count, the arrogance, and the opinions. Ignore the parses, facts, and references to fallacies. All I am is you - just another one of you. I'm just a player. I'm just a Templar. I'm just one. </P> <P>So, if you disagree with me, that's your right. Loudly, quietly, or silently, you have every right to disagree with me...just as I have every right to disagree with you. Ignore me as you wish. Decry me as you wish. In the end, I don't really matter. Just remember that. I'm just one out of thousands...just like you.</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>12-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:12 PM</span>

Quijonsith

12-06-2005, 04:21 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Quijonsith wrote:Ken, you missed the point entirely. Often I play the exact same way you just described, however I can atleast understand cae's situation. Why can't you? Posting your rebuttel as you have Cae no doubt found insulting. I know I would have. All he's looking for is a little understanding on your part. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Well, I can't speak for Caethre as you have, but if I were Caethre, I'd probably be more offended to be referred to as a male than by seeing a differing point of view on a similar situation. </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Ah, I see that I have been the recipient of one of your symantics nit picking. My apologies to Cae for referring to you as male. I did not know otherwise. And I did not speak for her, I mearly stated that I she probably would be insulted by your post because I certainly would have. Two can play the symantics game.</font> </p> <p>What I posted was my reality. I'm not judging anyone else here, only offering a differing view. Some folks obviously feel differently about Templars than I do. That's their right. They can see the Templar as broken, useless, worthless, or unplayable all they wish. It's not going to affect my own view on the subject, however. </p><p> </p> <p>The odd thing in this particular example is that the exact situation raised was the exact situation I found myself in all weekend. You see, Matthew is my roommate and I've mentioned this several times in several posts in several forums. We duo quite a bit as a holy warrior and a holy priest. Libertinus is a friend of mine I've known since college. On Friday, we just happened to group up. We grouped again on Saturday during the day. Again, last night. </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">What was the point in saying this? I don't need to know your living situation or who your friends are. Nor did I dispute your group existing nor ask why/how it formed.</font> I'm not one to allow my own guild members to offer up excuses for failing in certain situations, and I'll admit to being a bit of a hard taskmaster toward those who join the Legion. We're not a militaristic raiding guild, but neither do I believe in giving up or quitting. I impart upon my members my own drive to find a way - however it's done. It works well in situations where we're going up against a tough challenge or raid target, and it works well when we're faced with adversity. I like to think it's a reason several of my guildmates have been with us for many years...not merely months. We don't give up. We find a way. There's always a way. </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Agreed, hence I have adapted to the new templar....not gonna bother saying much else right now. I have to get to work and it wouldn't get through to you anyway.</font> </p> <p>So yes, when someone tells me that something's "broken", my hackles are raised and I'm going to show you how it's not. If someone tells me that something is impossible or unplayable or worthless, then again, I'll set out to show you just how impossible, unplayable, or worthless something really is.</p> <p>So, when you or anyone else tell me that I need to "understand" how some can see our class as broken, I hope you can "understand" exactly why I cannot. </p> <p>This, more than any other reason, is why I truly believe I've earned the respect of at least some of the developers and various members of the player community - that I do not give up and that I generally stay above the direct attacks and mudslinging which are so prevalent upon these forums at times. I don't feel it's necessary to have that respect and acknowledgement, but neither does that mean I do not appreciate that fact. That I've not earned the full respect of a certain segment of the Templar community is not going to hinder or change my methodologies. Frankly, lacking my respect or understanding should not hinder or change the methodologies of those who feel my views are incorrect. My approval is not required to disagree, just as I do not require the approval to do so from others. </p> <p>Ask yourself why it is you feel you require my understanding on this. Why is it you feel it's important for me of all people to understand? </p> <p>You don't. You don't need my approval, my understanding, my agreement, or even my acknowledgement. I'm just another player like yourselves. I'm just another person. Ignore the post count, the arrogance, and the opinions. Ignore the parses, facts, and references to fallacies. All I am is you - just another one of you. I'm just a player. I'm just a Templar. I'm just one. </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">It's not about approval. As you said noone needs your approval. It's about having a conversation without [Removed for Content] off dang near everyone you respond to.</font> </p> <p>So, if you disagree with me, that's your right. Loudly, quietly, or silently, you have every right to disagree with me...just as I have every right to disagree with you. Ignore me as you wish. Decry me as you wish. In the end, I don't really matter. Just remember that. I'm just one out of thousands...just like you.</p> <p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class="date_text">12-05-2005</span> <span class="time_text">03:12 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

Andu

12-06-2005, 05:51 AM

<P>**REMOVED DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT, PERSONAL ATTACKS**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>12-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:22 AM</span>

kenji

12-06-2005, 06:24 AM

<DIV>well...how much % is Admonishment really dropping? look at your AC and Mit %, u will know</DIV> <DIV>u may add 10% dmg with it. not even close to 25%. =)<BR><BR></DIV>

Takeo1

12-06-2005, 07:12 AM

<P>**REMOVED DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT, LANGUAGE**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>12-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:32 AM</span>

Dalchar

12-06-2005, 09:56 AM

Ken tends to offer a different viewpoint than most other templars on this forum, to such an extreme that most people start tearing into him regardless of his points are valid or correct and for that matter possibly just opinion of what his experiences have been. What I generally see, is Ken posting an opinion. Someone posts a counter opinion generally exclaiming how wrong he is and how awful of a player and person he is not to see something right in his face. He defends his position. Three others join in on the war against him. There's several people in this forum whom are frankly outright hostile 80% of the posts I've read and 99% of the time it's in reference to Ken. Contrary to what everyone believes, he does play your class and I highly doubt he's out to actively hinder progress. His experiences may not mirror yours. His opinions may not mirror yours. That doesn't make him 100% right nor does it make anyone else 100% right either. And hostile remarks on either side aren't right. Keep in mind everyone behind all these words is human. Keep in mind that some words may be missing, some meaning misconveyed by words that's easier explained in person. hehe something I went through in work orientation today... I don't know why but reading some of this made me tthink about it again (it was a long 8 hours that I really was hoping I'd not have to think about for another 16 LOL). Respect Integrity Teamwork Excellence. Respect eachother's opinions, and experiences, even if they may differ. Keep everyone's integrity intact. Hollering and hooting and deliberately trying to make someone out to look bad isn't necessarily good form. Teamwork so that you may all work together to achieve a goal, in this case, a more stable dependable templar class. Excellence... exactly what you're trying to get to. You can get there but, different gears need replaced, altered, tossed, and perhaps some of the parts need replaced by different people. <div></div>

Aleph

12-06-2005, 10:19 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR> <DIV>well...how much % is Admonishment really dropping? look at your AC and Mit %, u will know</DIV> <DIV>u may add 10% dmg with it. not even close to 25%. =)<BR><BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I did a bunch of parses with Reproach on greens when I was lower level, and I got about a 10% increase in my own melee damage (I think the 95% confidence interval was about +-1.5%, but it's been a while). My guess is that blues, whites, and yellows will show more percentage improvement because they mitigate more to start with. Even 10% is quite significant, in my mind. If you have melee doing 1000 dps, you're doing 100 just with this buff.</P> <P>I haven't checked with Admonishment.</P> <P>Alephin</P>

kenji

12-06-2005, 10:25 AM

<P>i...eh...grouped my guildie lvl 60 guardian and a full grp of melee to [Removed for Content] cyclops at PoF yesterday.</P> <P>95% of time i am not healing, it's not needed. the tank isnt getting dmg...<BR>the only time i need to heal is...my rogue dps too high, stolen aggro...few hits...then the guard take it back.<BR>i did few fights with admonishment, ~15 sec each ^^^.<BR>i did few fights w/o admonishment, ~15 sec each ^^^.<BR>why? its because i have a few debuffer rogue...such as my brigand doing his 3000 debuff (all) when he feel showoff time etc.<BR>because the ranger putting up his Longbow with stance and shooting poison (err...arrows) ...<BR>i feel more uber with admonishment or my uber heal or my GoC? nope...no effect, at all.</P> <P>do i feel gimped or leeching? yes i do, i keep smiting and only doing 100 dps only while they hit 300~800 (lvl varies) dps Each.</P> <P>that is what i mean from 1st msg, the healing required is too low, the effect of templar superior healing Isnt Needed , at all. u need burst dps only as a priest. in any xp group.<BR><BR>raid is different, no 1 care a fury doing 250 or 400 dps... there are 12 others dps class tearing the boss with 500~1000 dps. all healers just do 1 thing, heal. and buff the MT, or the DPSer more DPSing. How many MT in a raid? 1, 2, max 3. how many DPS a raid, except 1-3 MT, 6-8 healers, all others are DPSer. which 1 technically need more? definitely not templar.<BR></P>

kenji

12-06-2005, 10:28 AM

<P>hm...Alephin...i am sure u arent sure how % work.</P> <P>e.g at lvl 10, u got 1000 ac, u got 100% absorb. 20 - 2000 ac, 100% absorb, the higher lvl, the need of ac will be more... lvl 65 boss probably taking 10% debuff with 700 debuff... or so, dont have exact numbers... but u look at your own stats will know.</P>

Aleph

12-06-2005, 11:34 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR> <P>hm...Alephin...i am sure u arent sure how % work.</P> <P>e.g at lvl 10, u got 1000 ac, u got 100% absorb. 20 - 2000 ac, 100% absorb, the higher lvl, the need of ac will be more... lvl 65 boss probably taking 10% debuff with 700 debuff... or so, dont have exact numbers... but u look at your own stats will know.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I know exactly how armor class corresponds with absorption percentage and level. I'm also not sure what difference it makes to my point. The 10% number is yours as well as mine. If you increase melee damage output by 10% through a mit debuff, 1000 dps melee damage corresponds to ~100 dps of templar damage. That is significant damage. Maybe it isn't fury quality, and maybe it isn't flashy, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You don't think 100 dps is significant for a healer on top of whatever nukes you throw in?</P> <P>On the topic of your previous post, I agree. If you don't need a healer at all, a fury is better than a templar. A wizard would be better than either. These types of situations aren't evidence that templars are broken, they are evidence that the content you are fighting is too easy to be challenging for a healer. If you want to argue for more difficult everyday xp group content, I'm all for that. </P> <P>Alephin</P> <P> </P>

kenji

12-06-2005, 01:22 PM

<P>closer to the point now...<BR>a grp of 55-60 is fighting somewhere too easy with lvl 57-58 mobs.<BR>isnt that the same Kend with his 53 healer with 2 47ish killing 40ish-50?<BR><BR>its [Removed for Content] that u think 10% of melee dps is [Removed for Content] enough.<BR><BR>now this is another thought, w/o fury's self dps, they got fae flame, 400 dmg x 6 players. primal fury (not even a debuff) 10% proc (double of GoC)haste buff + DPS buff (40ish% mind u), e.g a 500 dps (ranger / brigand / assassin) will pump to 800ish dps.<BR>admonishment will pump (say 4 scouts, 1 guard, temp) with say 2000 dps will get 200 dps from Admonishment<BR>with fae flame will provide 2400 dmg, if fight is 10 sec worth, 240, 20 sec worth 120. sounds balanced.<BR>with primal fury will provide 300 dps , with fae flame... will be 540 dps in 10 sec, or 420 dps in 20 sec... note that the fury isnt nuking. <BR><BR>u think templar are getting closer to fury now?</P><p>Message Edited by kenjiso on <span class=date_text>12-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:26 AM</span>

Timaarit

12-06-2005, 02:58 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <p>If the developers had attempted to balance the game around soloing capabilities, then yes, I'd agree with you. However, they stated that they balanced the game around full groups - not soloing, not duoing, not raiding - but full groups. That's where gameplay has always been encouraged. </p> <p><b><i>Other styles exist certainly, but the balance was not based around that</i></b>. I'm not going to apologize for building up a strong guild and having a large base of friendships. I realize that other Templars here apparantly don't have access to (what is in my mind) basic fundamentals of a massively multiplayer game, however that's how the game is effectively played to best efficiency for some classes. </p><hr></blockquote>Now that proves that you dont have a clue about the devs intent. Todays 'balance' has been made around PvP and PvP alone. In PvP templars can win against anyone and anyone can win against templars. I'd say that this is the reason why we will not be a playable class in the near future, because we would be overpowered in PvP if we were upgraded.</span><div></div>

Timaarit

12-06-2005, 03:00 PM

Quetz, it wqasn't lu13 that broke the balance, it was the one that improved druid HoT's. Druids and clerics were balanced with LU13, but it was broken later. <div></div>

quetzaqotl

12-06-2005, 04:45 PM

<P>Oh it was the change to hots that broke the balance, kk good to know so the change from 15 secs of 250 health a tick to 10 secs of 350 health a tick did it?</P> <P>Id much rather have a hot that lasts for 20 secs and heals for 200 a tick (about) that would be beneficial for the style of play for furies I wouldnt care one bit if they changed it back.</P> <P>Druid hots dont't stack so in raids I dont even cast my single target regen.</P> <P>Also to kenji, furies buff offense btw primal fury is single target only and fae flames is only useful when youre in a group which is full of melee and has a long recast.</P> <P>Do you want to add the dps buffing of furies to our personal dps and say how unbalanced it is?</P> <P>Well then add the dps buffing an inq can do to their personal dmg hmmm wouldnt that make inq the top dog in that dpt? Im sure they woulld.</P>

Aleph

12-06-2005, 05:42 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR> <P>closer to the point now...<BR>a grp of 55-60 is fighting somewhere too easy with lvl 57-58 mobs.<BR>isnt that the same Kend with his 53 healer with 2 47ish killing 40ish-50?<BR><BR>its [Removed for Content] that u think 10% of melee dps is [Removed for Content] enough.<BR><BR>now this is another thought, w/o fury's self dps, they got fae flame, 400 dmg x 6 players. primal fury (not even a debuff) 10% proc (double of GoC)haste buff + DPS buff (40ish% mind u), e.g a 500 dps (ranger / brigand / assassin) will pump to 800ish dps.<BR>admonishment will pump (say 4 scouts, 1 guard, temp) with say 2000 dps will get 200 dps from Admonishment<BR>with fae flame will provide 2400 dmg, if fight is 10 sec worth, 240, 20 sec worth 120. sounds balanced.<BR>with primal fury will provide 300 dps , with fae flame... will be 540 dps in 10 sec, or 420 dps in 20 sec... note that the fury isnt nuking. <BR><BR>u think templar are getting closer to fury now?</P> <P>Message Edited by kenjiso on <SPAN class=date_text>12-06-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>12:26 AM</SPAN><BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No, I still think furies are superior offensively in that situation. That is because furies are a more offensive priest class. The fury superiority doesn't nullify contributions that a templar can make, though. I think that if you are measuring healer effectiveness in a group by the amount of damage they put out, something has gone awry. Just because the fury can do more damage does not make them a better healer. It might make them a better wizard. In the situation you described, a healer isn't needed at all and the fury could also be replaced. It gets even easier if the tank is a paladin. You could probably replace the tank too, with another scout for even faster killing.</P> <P>If content is such that you can plow through it without challenging a healer, the content is too easy. Is this your fault? Possibly not. But the problem is with the combat difficulty, not the healing ability. I prefer to accept less dps than a fury and push for more difficult combat situations, either just from my group or from the developers. I didn't roll a templar to do big dps, and I avoid groups like the one you mentioned because they are boring. They would be boring with any healer, because they are not challenging.</P> <P>The only place where I would really like templars to have more dps is solo, and even that should only happen because all the solo quests are about killing 50 mobs of the same type, something that my templar would prefer not to do anyway if there was other quest content to do solo. Leave the mob killing to the professionals, I say. </P> <P>Make everyday group combat require significant healing, and make a significant percentage of battles last long enough to equalize burst and consistent damage. These are better solutions, in my mind, than giving templars bigger nukes.</P> <P>Alephin</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

Kendricke

12-06-2005, 07:36 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>If the developers had attempted to balance the game around soloing capabilities, then yes, I'd agree with you. However, they stated that they balanced the game around full groups - not soloing, not duoing, not raiding - but full groups. That's where gameplay has always been encouraged. </P> <P><B><I>Other styles exist certainly, but the balance was not based around that</I></B>. I'm not going to apologize for building up a strong guild and having a large base of friendships. I realize that other Templars here apparantly don't have access to (what is in my mind) basic fundamentals of a massively multiplayer game, however that's how the game is effectively played to best efficiency for some classes. </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Now that proves that you dont have a clue about the devs intent. Todays 'balance' has been made around PvP and PvP alone. In PvP templars can win against anyone and anyone can win against templars. I'd say that this is the reason why we will not be a playable class in the near future, because we would be overpowered in PvP if we were upgraded.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Developers have stated that the intention of balance from the combat revamp was made around grouping...and that spells can be balanced separately for PVP and PVE. What information do you have indicating that the developers are intending to balance the game around PVP? </P> <P> </P>

OlaeviaTraisharan

12-06-2005, 07:40 PM

<DIV>Lord I hope they're not balancing around PVP. That's not a good idea unless the end game is centered around PVP as the primary target for gameplay like in games like Shadowbane or DAOC.</DIV>

Nari

12-06-2005, 07:40 PM

God, I hate to agree with that. If they balanced it around PvP, then I would bet serious money that the templar would be different. It would be a total exercise in frustration to fight one. Can you imaging how long it would take to kill a templar of equal level with equal gear. Infact, they would still be dueling by the time this thread dies. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

OlaeviaTraisharan

12-06-2005, 07:41 PM

<DIV>I'd duel the way I handle the champion in Splitpaw... keep casting my reactive and healing until the opponent doesn't have any mana, then blast away with my "Tickle Me Elmo" smites.</DIV>

Kendricke

12-06-2005, 07:51 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> OlaeviaTraisharan wrote:<BR> <DIV>Lord I hope they're not balancing around PVP. That's not a good idea unless the end game is centered around PVP as the primary target for gameplay like in games like Shadowbane or DAOC.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Ahem! As I stated, they will not be balancing classes around PVP - not in any way that affects PVE:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moorgard wrote (in <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=pvp&message.id=92&query.id=0#M92" target=_blank>Re: Player -vs- Player in Sept</A> ):<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raahl wrote:<BR> <P>The only thing I dislike about PvP is how it affect the game development. With PvP in, there will be players screaming for more balance! Eventually Sony will cave in and screw around with the classes because class A has no chance against class B.<BR></P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>No, we won't. The great thing about our spell system is that we don't have to change any spell or art for the sake of PvP.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We can specify separate effects for spells based on whether they are used for PvP or PvE. For example, if a particular spell does a huge amount of damage and we decide it messes up PvP, we can just set it so it does less damage against other players without affecting its impact on NPCs one bit.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I know one of the biggest concerns of the pro-PvE crowd is that they don't want us changing or rebalancing the live game for the sake of PvP, and happily we don't need to. Besides, with the type of PvP we're introducing, no class-based PvP balancing is required anyway.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>P.S. - The above few comments are exactly the reason I ask people on this forum to back up the comments they make. Rumors are incredibly easy to start on this forum, and tend to have a life of their own. Already, just one comment from Timaarit claiming <EM>as fact</EM> that "todays 'balance' has been made around PvP and PvP alone" was enough to already start a small train of doubt. </P> <P><BR> </P><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>12-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:53 AM</span>

Timaarit

12-06-2005, 08:16 PM

<span><blockquote>Kendricke wrote: <p>P.S. - The above few comments are exactly the reason I ask people on this forum to back up the comments they make. Rumors are incredibly easy to start on this forum, and tend to have a life of their own. Already, just one comment from Timaarit claiming <em>as fact</em> that "todays 'balance' has been made around PvP and PvP alone" was enough to already start a small train of doubt. </p> <p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class="date_text">12-06-2005</span> <span class="time_text">06:53 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>They have stated so many other things that are not reality that I don't believe that Moorgards statement for a second. They have not made any changes to skills in the way Moorgard has stated, only difference now is that mobs have no resists nor mitigation and all damage a spell does, is taken to the full amount. They also gave mobs more health to compensate this. With players, resists and mitigation does affect. So they have in fact not made any changes to any specific spells/skills, all modifications have been made to all skills. So in fact, even that part of Moorgards post is false. I repeat, they have not touched a single skill the way he mentioned. Unless you consider modifying all skills to fit that wording.</span><div></div>

bigmak20

12-06-2005, 08:16 PM

Ahem! Tsk, Tsk. It's not what's said it's what's done. It's not what numbers say it's how it is in the game (such as: DPS in 30 secs vs. long fight averaging -- long fight average is irrelevant when typical fight for any class but cleric is under 30 secs) Being concerned that one of the reasons this game is borked is Sony is messing with it for PvP is a valid concern that makes sense. Postulate: the reason devs aren't commenting on our appaling DPS in gameplay is they don't want us getting any DPS since it would affect PvP balance. Doesn't matter if Sony claims it won't/shouldn't but they aren't here telling us why we aren't allowed fair DPS now are they? <div></div>

Gcha

12-06-2005, 08:46 PM

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.

Kendricke

12-06-2005, 08:54 PM

<P>Ok, so now the developers are actively working against the playerbase...and intentionally misleading us...and I'm supposed to take the word of Timaarit, Bigmak, and Gchang over the actual coders and designers when it comes to developer intention?</P> <P>I'm genuinely curious if what I stated is the intention of what each of you is saying.</P> <P> </P>

Copperha

12-06-2005, 08:58 PM

I *think* they are suggesting that you should take the posts made by the developers with a grain of salt and not as gospel since they have sometimes said one thing and done something different. <p>Message Edited by Copperhand on <span class=date_text>12-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:30 PM</span>

Timaarit

12-06-2005, 09:00 PM

<span><blockquote>Kendricke wrote:<p>Ok, so now the developers are actively working against the playerbase...and intentionally misleading us...and I'm supposed to take the word of Timaarit, Bigmak, and Gchang over the actual coders and designers when it comes to developer intention?</p> <p>I'm genuinely curious if what I stated is the intention of what each of you is saying.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>To make the devs to rething their own motivations. Is it to make the PvE playable by all classes or is it to balance PvP. As it is, PvP is pretty balanced, though templars are not fun even there and healer vs. healer fights are so boring that no one does them. I dont even want to fight paladins, SK's nor bruisers since they can heal themselves, the fights are neverending. But they are balanced since the loser is the one who rans out of patience first. PvE on the other hand is not balanced, there are now several classes that at their best can do what all the other classes can, but in normal situations, other classes go past them very clearly. The DPS tree Moorgard provided as a fact, did not happen, but heck, all classes are PvP balanced at least.</span><div></div>

OlaeviaTraisharan

12-06-2005, 09:00 PM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> OlaeviaTraisharan wrote:<BR> <DIV>Lord I hope they're not balancing around PVP. That's not a good idea unless the end game is centered around PVP as the primary target for gameplay like in games like Shadowbane or DAOC.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Ahem! As I stated, they will not be balancing classes around PVP - not in any way that affects PVE:</P> <P>[*snip*]<BR> </P> <P>Message Edited by Kendricke on <SPAN class=date_text>12-06-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:53 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I know <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I was just bantering about the "what-ifs"</DIV>

Gcha

12-06-2005, 09:17 PM

<P>**REMOVED DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>12-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:51 AM</span>

Aleph

12-06-2005, 09:32 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR>Quetz, it wqasn't lu13 that broke the balance, it was the one that improved druid HoT's. Druids and clerics were balanced with LU13, but it was broken later.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I'm a little perplexed by the magnitude of that HoT improvement after update 13 myself. It makes more sense for wardens than furies, anyhow. In my opinion, furies should be able to keep up with burst damage, but they should have to pay a great power/time (not have time to do anything else) penalty for doing so. I'm not sure that the current penalty is enough, but I'm not going to be dogmatic on the subject, because I don't play a fury and don't understand all of their limitations. </P> <P>Alephin</P>

Kendricke

12-06-2005, 09:32 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>Ok, so now the developers are actively working against the playerbase...and intentionally misleading us...and I'm supposed to take the word of Timaarit, Bigmak, and Gchang over the actual coders and designers when it comes to developer intention?</P> <P>I'm genuinely curious if what I stated is the intention of what each of you is saying.</P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Dang, lol, it's unbelievable that you continue to do this, Kendricke. Your, ahem, twisted "paraphrasing" has nothing to do with what anyone is saying .... as I am sure you well know .... just another of your little strawmen you like to attack. "Working against the playerbase" ... sheesh, lol ... where do you get this stuff.</P> <P>The game devs are working FOR a successful business result. If that does not include what part of the playerbase wants, so be it ... this is all a numbers game, and they're going to do what they THINK will bring the numbers. There IS a PvP system coming, and if you believe the things they do these days have nothing to do with it you've got to be kidding yourself.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I'm not assuming anything. That's why I asked for a clarification. I posted what it sounded like to me and asked if my interpretation was accurate.</P> <P>I try to work with facts. When statements are made that the developers say one thing and do another, I want to see facts related to that - not personal assumptions. It's a heck of an allegation to level at anyone - that they are intentionally misleading. Developers clearly state that PVE balance isn't affected by PVP balance, and yet that's somehow incorrect? Based on what? Are any of you authorities on game balance privy to information the rest of us are not? Have you seen the design docs and specs? Have you glanced through lines of code?</P> <P>Where are the facts here? It's ok to speculate, provided that your speculation is not presented as factual. However, that's exactly what I'm seeing here. I'm seeing outright factual statements that are based on nothing more than a firm belief, apparantly. </P> <P>If I'm missing out on something, I'd be keen to see what it is I'm supposed to see. Short of calling the developers liars, it doesn't seem to me that there's much of a way to refute what it is Moorgard (and others) have stated on the subject...at least till the new PVP system goes live, at least.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

bigmak20

12-06-2005, 09:52 PM

Kendricke; The only one that said the developer's stated one thing and did another was you. Once again you attempt to attach your own words to someone else. I merely pointed out the developer's intent was not always how the game plays. My post was clear. Don't obfuscate. <div></div>

Gcha

12-06-2005, 09:56 PM

<P>**REMOVED DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT, PERSONAL ATTACKS**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>12-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:49 AM</span>

Gcha

12-07-2005, 12:25 AM

<P>**REMOVED, IF YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH POSTS REPORT THEM FOR REVIEW THANK YOU**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>12-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:13 PM</span>

Timaarit

12-07-2005, 12:46 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Ok, so now the developers are actively working against the playerbase...and intentionally misleading us...and I'm supposed to take the word of Timaarit, Bigmak, and Gchang over the actual coders and designers when it comes to developer intention?</p> <>I'm genuinely curious if what I stated is the intention of what each of you is saying.<> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Anyway, looks like you agree with me Kendr since the only defence you had is to twist my words and build up a strawman. If you were right, you would have had facts to prove otherwisi. But you dont.</span><div></div>

Kendricke

12-07-2005, 12:57 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>Ok, so now the developers are actively working against the playerbase...and intentionally misleading us...and I'm supposed to take the word of Timaarit, Bigmak, and Gchang over the actual coders and designers when it comes to developer intention?</P><>I'm genuinely curious if what I stated is the intention of what each of you is saying.<><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Anyway, looks like you agree with me Kendr since the only defence you had is to twist my words and build up a strawman. If you were right, you would have had facts to prove otherwisi. But you dont.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Timaarit,</P> <P>My post is phrased as a question and a statement asking for clarification. If I'm wrong, then simply say I'm misunderstanding you. Otherwise, that's how I took the posts I saw. </P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>Frankly, you <STRONG>did</STRONG> state: <EM>"They have stated so many other things that are not reality that I don't believe that Moorgards statement [regarding PVP/PVE balancing] for a second." </EM></P> <P>You <STRONG>did</STRONG> state: <EM>"Now that proves that you [Kendricke] dont have a clue about the devs intent. Todays 'balance' has been made around PvP and PvP alone."</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>These statements lead me to believe that you feel you know the developer intent. Moreover, you seem to indicate that we should take your statement as fact, and not believe the statement made by the developers.</P> <P>This isn't semantics. This is direct line communications. That's what I read there. Are you saying that I misread? If so, please explain what I saw incorrectly there...because from what I'm seeing, you seem to indicate that we should not accept the developer's own word on the subject, and should take your word, instead.</P> <P> </P>

Timaarit

12-07-2005, 02:08 AM

<div></div><span><blockquote>Kendricke wrote:<div></div>These statements lead me to believe that you feel you know the developer intent. Moreover, you seem to indicate that we should take your statement as fact, and not believe the statement made by the developers. <p>This isn't semantics. This is direct line communications. That's what I read there. Are you saying that I misread? If so, please explain what I saw incorrectly there...because from what I'm seeing, you seem to indicate that we should not accept the developer's own word on the subject, and should take your word, instead.</p> <hr></blockquote>I know what they have done. I also understand why. If they would make templars more powerful, all other classes would start complaining because templars couldn't be beaten in PvP. Now less people complain. And they are not telling the truth about their intent either. Because that would also cause an uproar. Remember when they mentioned that they are not going to bring PvP to EQ2? Then it changed to 'near' future. Then they were never going to bring full PvP servers. Now they are looking into it. So which do you believe, words or facts? I prefer latter, that is why I dont believe your opinions either. Edit: Now here is the kicker: Why is Reverence so crappy in groups <span>:smileywink:</span>? Answer is that if it was any better, it would be too good for PvP.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class=date_text>12-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:14 PM</span>

Kendricke

12-07-2005, 02:30 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR> <SPAN>Remember when they mentioned that they are not going to bring PvP to EQ2? </SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No, I don't recall that. I recall in posts made on AgeOfDestiny.com long before beta that Moorgard stated there would be no PVP at release. 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 PVP would eventually be placed within the game, but that we would not expect to see special rules servers at release.</P> <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> <P>NOTE: All of this following quotes are from 2003 - a full year prior to release. Even while they were announcing then that PVP would not be available at launch, they were stating that they would be introducing it at some point:</P> <P></P> <HR> <P>Wed Oct 08, 2003 12:58 pm<BR><A href="http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=108686&highlight=#108686" target=_blank>http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=108686&highlight=#108686</A><BR></P> <P></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><SPAN class=genmed><B>Moorgard wrote:</B></SPAN>This topic has already been discussed internally, and a decision was made. Normal servers will allow multiple characters. While you can feel free to discuss the merits of that decision, it's not something up for debate.<BR><BR>We may introduce servers with special rulesets that limit you to one character, but that would happen down the road.</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>Tue Nov 25, 2003 11:33 pm<BR><A href="http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=144327&highlight=#144327" target=_blank>http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=144327&highlight=#144327</A><BR></P> <P></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><SPAN class=genmed><B>Moorgard wrote:</B></SPAN>While we do plan to have special rules servers, we're not going to promise them at launch. We'd really rather not rush out special rules servers without proper planning and testing; I think in the long run that would be worse than not having them right away.<BR><BR>At a minimum I will advocate that a server be designated "roleplaying preferred," as that's something quite important to many players. Unfortunately the same kind of thing wouldn't be possible with a PvP server, as simply turning on a PvP flag and throwing balance to the wind would be a disservice to the customer base. Nor can we just copy over server code from EQLive--even if such a thing were possible, copying their rules without proper testing and tweaking wouldn't be a good solution.<BR><BR>Whether we have special rules servers at launch depends on a number of factors, most notably the time necessary to design, code, and test them. I'll give specifics about our progress on this issue before release, but probably not long before then.<BR><BR>This statement supercedes previous commentary on the subject.</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Wed Nov 26, 2003 02:19 am<BR><A href="http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=144432&highlight=#144432" target=_blank>http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=144432&highlight=#144432</A><BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><SPAN class=genmed><B>Moorgard wrote:</B></SPAN></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><SPAN class=genmed></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN class=genmed><B>Agraza wrote:</B></SPAN>If its a question of not being able to find the time to make it worthwhile I can understand. if its some BS about simply catering to the larger audience its not acceptable.</P></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN class=postbody> <P><BR>Nothing I wrote says anything about catering to the larger audience as an excuse. As I stated, the main issue is time--time to do special rulesets right rather than rush something out the door.<BR><BR>The goal is to do compelling PvP that has rewards beyond just fighting someone. We are not out to eliminate PvP players, but rather to offer something that might even attract more players to those servers.<BR><BR>The question is whether we can do that in a way that's up to the standards we have for the game in the time before we ship. I hope we can, and I know you do, too. But I'm not going tell you "Oh yeah, it's coming, don't worry" if there's a possibility that we'd have to disappoint you later.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P></SPAN><SPAN class=genmed><B>Quasar of Ebonlore wrote:</B></SPAN>What is UNACCEPTABLE is that you are even remotely considering copying that crappy code in the first place. How many PvPers has SOE lost due to that code. That code didn't/doesn't work and PvPers aren't looking for EQ2 with EQ1 PvP code. OMG that would be the biggest mistake to date in PvP in a MMOG.</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><SPAN class=postbody>Which, if you read what I wrote, was exactly my point.<BR><BR>Based on the complaints I've seen about the implementation of PvP in some other games (including EQ), I really think most people who enjoy PvP want to see it done well. Those who are saying "Just give us something!" in this thread would complain as loud as anyone about a bad PvP implementation.<BR><BR>We want to offer gameplay to the PvP market that is done well. We'd like to offer it the day we ship, but I can't guarantee it, so I won't. If it takes us extra time to get it right, then in the long run it's better for everyone if we do that.</SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Wed Nov 26, 2003 03:00 pm<BR><A href="http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=144815&highlight=#144815" target=_blank>http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=144815&highlight=#144815</A><BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><SPAN class=genmed><B>Moorgard wrote:</B></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=genmed>I appreciate the fact that some people love PvP, and that entire social structures can be built around this commonality. But please try to remember, during the course of your advocacy, that there are also people who don't enjoy it and wouldn't want any part of it even if we had the best PvP ever. That doesn't make them wrong and you right, nor the other way around.<BR><BR>Defeating a smart opponent can be very satisfying--it's the basis for sporting events on all levels. Being griefed and shamed for losing is not fun for most people, however, and that is the biggest stumbling block to PvP acceptance in our culture.<BR><BR>I'd love to see a consolidated thread for PvP ideas that takes into account what you know about our game mechanics. This should be maintained by a single voice, kind of a PvP index with the best ideas added to the initial post.<BR></SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Dalchar

12-07-2005, 05:59 AM

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Alephin wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>I'm a little perplexed by the magnitude of that HoT improvement after update 13 myself. It makes more sense for wardens than furies, anyhow. In my opinion, furies should be able to keep up with burst damage, but they should have to pay a great power/time (not have time to do anything else) penalty for doing so. I'm not sure that the current penalty is enough, but I'm not going to be dogmatic on the subject, because I don't play a fury and don't understand all of their limitations. </BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I think you may be surprised at how fast we burn through power really. We do have the fasest and quick recast. But overall pre-52 heal for less than other priests by about 7%. Casting faster & recast faster = OOP faster <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Make no mistake though, if I'm healing on a rough encounter, I'm doing nothing else except healing and generally gritting my teeth when doing it. Keeper of Silence puts me on edge like you wouldn't believe <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. While there is some capability to deal with burst, the heals are still markedly small overall. Kinda depends on what the "burst" was. Hit for 1k? sure doable and quickly. Nuked for 3k? Well, at 50/51 I could replace about 1100 with Master1s of that 3k in 2.5s...but nothing else for another 4-5s... the regen is ticking, but did I really recover from that burst? Getting hit with a series of hard hits to get to 3k in say 1s (CAs or something) would generally have resulted in the same thing for a fury, in the cleric's case though, the series of hits triggered the reactive 3x while regen didn't scale... and tank is still continually getting hit. So it's not only "burst" it's kinda along the lines of "what kind of burst" too. It's those kinds of things that make a regen and group regen pale where the reactive versions shine. In the event of a nuke we likely didn't do a whole lot better than anyone else. In the event of several hard hits in a fast time, cleric handled the burst better. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With BITF, I can handle burst substantially better. Especially when you consider mobs don't tend to have ice comet, assassinate, etc pre-50. However, that burst handling isn't unconditional and if I mistime the cast, I paid arch cost cost for heal that was less than my small normal heal, considering regens are ticking, more people than I have heals (pallies, sk lifetaps, mends, necros, etc) it's easy to miss on bitf. And if a mob is just pummeling into a tank, there's not much I can do except heal with everything I have as I've nothing preventing any of the damage it's doing. I just chaincast heals. The mob might die 10s faster from various buffs, but that doesn't matter if you can't keep the tank up.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There's a lot of aspects to consider in all the classes and how they function. That's actually a lot of the reason I like to read and respond in the templar forum. I've learned a lot from what I read here from Kend, Cath, Tim, Bigmack, Radon, etc. about how templars do and don't work. Each of them has valid points whether they'd loathe to admit that the opposing viewpoint may or may not. I hope clarifications and explanations I give from my experiences are constructive and informative for them as well. I even try and provide some ideas and suggestions that I hope may be of use.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Dalcharis on <span class=date_text>12-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:05 PM</span>