Why are we being told we are wrong?

[Orodru]

<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I don't get it.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Some people say "Templars need more DPS". Some say "Templars don't need more DPS because we're not meant to do DPS". </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Fine. Two opposing viewpoints.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>But why do people of one viewpoint need to tell people of the other viewpoint they are wrong?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I know Templar DPS is lower than the DPS of most other healers. I want SOE to address this issue. I also know I'm not a DPS class. I didn't make a templar to do DPS. But sometimes I am LFG and want to kill some stuff. Sometimes I want to finish a few solo quests. Sometimes I want to do writs. Sometimes I don't have enough time to join a group. Sometimes I just want to harvest (and handle the occasional aggro with some degree of efficiency). At those times, it would be very nice to have DPS that is on par with other healing classes.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Why is that so bad?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Why do other players feel the need to tell me to change my mind?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Why do other players feel the need to start posting evidence, quotes, and sometimes even attacks, geared toward changing my mind?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I don't tell any players "Hey, you're wrong. Here's why. Now shut up and stop complaining."</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Why do other players tell me that?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Shouldn't I be allowed to post my thoughts in the hopes that SOE reads them and maybe, just maybe, I might even get what I want.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I don't see how that is so bad. Certainly, not so bad that other players, other templars, should feel the need to get up in arms and create post after post after post telling me I"m wrong.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>After all, their templar will get more DPS too. And if they don't feel it's appropriate, or necessary, those players can simply not use that new DPS. They can go on being non-DPS healers and still keep enjoying their game. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>But, now, I might enjoy my game too.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Why can't we all win? </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Why do those players feel that it's necessary for me to be unhappy, even if they feel I am wrong?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I just want us all to enjoy this game - and what I'm asking will NOT reduce the happiness of any other templar.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>So why can't I have the consideration to make my post, express my wish, and not be told by other players that I'm wrong?</FONT></DIV>

[Gcha]

A-freakin-men brother.

[Manit]

<font color="#ccff00">"Why do other players feel the need to start posting evidence, quotes, and sometimes even attacks, geared toward changing my mind?" --- a previous poster <font color="#ffffff">Also many readers implie statements that do not exist. not too good. However, the heck with be'n perssuasive. Math just distracts, right? i mean, 1+1 never is 2. Nah. Nah. Never. <span>:smileywink:</span></font> </font><font color="#ccff00"> </font><font color="#ccff00">"Why can't we all win?" --- a previous poster <font color="#ffffff">Everyone does win....eventually. Heck, why ya think we have combat revamps? I doubt its for balance cause this would mean future revamps wouldn't be need because eventually the game would be zen to all players. lol. I luv EQ2. I will always be with EQ2 no matter how SOE structures my potential because the next revamp will can just do that. Stay Alive!   <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span> </font></font><div></div>

[Antryg Mistrose]

My theory: <ol> <li>Die hard, ex EQ1 clerics who want to be a pure healer and nothing but, superior to all lesser healing classes</li> <li>Some who never solo, and want the focus to only be on what they want.</li> <li>People who haven't played another class, so don't realise just how bad our dps is </li> <li>Idiots who haven't actually realised we are not only the lowest dps priest, we are the lowest dps in the game. </li> </ol> <div></div>

[Andu]

<DIV> <P><SPAN>I have no idea. The thing that makes me laugh (i have to laugh or else I would cry) is that the greatest opponents of change and improvement in our class are not the other classes. I have seen plenty of other classes express the opinion that our DPS should be improved. Yes, even Furies <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>No, the greatest opponents of change in our class are other Templars. Quite what their agenda is I have no idea. However, as I posted in another thread, when SOE finish reviewing things and our ability to solo/DPS is addressed, are these people then going to start posting in the volume that they do now demanding that things be returned to our current state.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>I don’t think so.<FONT face="Arial Narrow"><FONT color=#000000></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>

[Antryg Mistrose]

<P>Anduri wrote: <FONT color=#ffff00>"<SPAN>No, the greatest opponents of change in our class are other Templars.</SPAN>"</FONT></P> <P>Aren't they just.</P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=58787&view=by_date_ascending&page=1" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=58787&view=by_date_ascending&page=1</A></P> <P>At the higher levels we could have had consecration.  Just take a walk acrosss to the paladin boards, and see if Divine Arbitration was such a good trade.</P>

[SenorPhrog]

<DIV>Nobody should really be telling you that you are wrong unless you are Orodruin.   I don't remember anyone in particular saying to you personally you are wrong but I'll look back on a few of your posts when I'm done replying.   I know I've personally said I don't think DPS is the way to go with our class and I can tell you for fact it wasn't in the design of clerics.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The problem with your logic is with the different types of players (and this has been gone over to death but we'll rehash again).   Soloers want DPS and could give two craps about grouping abilities.  Raiders and some groupers could give two craps about DPS and want more "utlitiy."   Most groupers are ok with our with our healing abilities but some would like enhanced healing.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So the question is "What do you change?"   We can't have everything or it unbalances us against the other classes.  More heals, more utilities, more DPS.....you might as well give us a Templar hack.  Put yourself in SOE's shoes for a second.   What do you say to those 3 groups?  Which side do you take or do you compromise?  How do you compromise?  How are you going to respond to the complaints of other classes?</DIV>

[Andu]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR> <DIV>...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The problem with your logic is with the different types of players (and this has been gone over to death but we'll rehash again).   Soloers want DPS and could give two craps about grouping abilities.  Raiders and some groupers could give two craps about DPS and want more "utlitiy."   Most groupers are ok with our with our healing abilities but some would like enhanced healing.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>...<BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This paragraph basically sums what is wrong with this board.</P> <P><FONT color=#ccffff>"Soloers want DPS and could give two craps about grouping abilities."</FONT> I've copied that to emphasise it as it is erroneous in every respect. I don't think I have ever seen a single post by someone who wants more DPS that said it would be fine for healing and utility to be reduced to compensate for it. The argument is (and has always been) that given our healing is now equal with other priests, we should not have to suffer such poor DPS and utility in comparison with other classes. Now, I think most people can have a good debate whether our utility is up to the job or not. That is very subjective. However our DPS is unquestionably poor.</P> <P><FONT color=#ccffff>Raiders and some groupers could give two craps about DPS and want more "utlitiy."</FONT> I guess I would fall into this category. And yes I would like to see some improvement to our utility. However I have never ever said that I don't give two craps about DPS. I would like to see my DPS improving as well.</P> <P>Those who do say they don't give a monkeys about DPS are only doing so because they want utility to be top of the agenda. This does not mean they don't want their DPS to be raised, merely that it is less of a priority to them. If only they would say that instead of "I dont care about DPS" then half the bickering on the board would vanish overnight.</P> <P><FONT color=#ccffff>Most groupers are ok with our with our healing abilities but some would like enhanced healing.</FONT> These are the worst of the bunch because they are living in a pre-LU13, EQ1 induced dream world. Templars healing is never ever going to be made so that it is unquestionably better than other classes. In fact, apart from a few tweaks here and there, it will probably not be touched again - unless there is some wholesale change to healing that effects all classes. If these people would please learn to accept this and then either join the real world and ask for improvements in other areas or just plain shut-up then we could all move forward.</P> <P> </P> <P>I would also say that their is a very small minority of people who just troll these boards and take up whatever is the contrary position to the original poster. They are the worst of all.</P>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR><BR> <P><FONT color=#ccffff>Most groupers are ok with our with our healing abilities but some would like enhanced healing.</FONT> These are the worst of the bunch because they are living in a pre-LU13, EQ1 induced dream world. Templars healing is never ever going to be made so that it is unquestionably better than other classes. In fact, apart from a few tweaks here and there, it will probably not be touched again - unless there is some wholesale change to healing that effects all classes. If these people would please learn to accept this and then either join the real world and ask for improvements in other areas or just plain shut-up then we could all move forward.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm not sure this is a hopeless desire as long as SOE intends to have damage potential (offense) differ among priests.  If offense unquestionably differs among priests (as it clearly does), then defense should too.  Defense, however, includes much more than healing.  It includes stuns, mezzes (even the lousy templar type), mitigation buffs, attack debuffs, and hit point buffs.  Basically, defense is the ability to handle incoming damage, and offense is the ability to handle outgoing damage through nukes, dots, buffs, and debuffs.  If furies and other offensive priests can dispense damage more effectively, then templars and other defensive priests should handle incoming damage more effectively.  You should not have both.  If there are situations where a fury is better defensively than a templar, then there should be situations where a templar is better offensively.</P> <P>On the other hand, if all priests are to be equivalent defensively, then the fury offensive advantage has to go (and any other priest's offensive advantages).  If there really is a problem, and I'm not sure that there is because I rarely group with other priests and certainly don't solo them, then it should be fixed.  Each balance style will work for me, although I do have preferences.  In the end, though, the whole package has to balance--not just nukes and heals--that is thinking too one-dimensionally.</P> <P>Alephin</P> <P><BR> </P>

[Barodur_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR>A-freakin-men brother. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This said it all right there.

[Andu]

<span><blockquote><hr>Alephin wrote:<p>I'm not sure this is a hopeless desire as long as SOE intends to have damage potential (offense) differ among priests.  If offense unquestionably differs among priests (as it clearly does), then defense should too.  Defense, however, includes much more than healing.  It includes stuns, mezzes (even the lousy templar type), mitigation buffs, attack debuffs, and hit point buffs.  Basically, defense is the ability to handle incoming damage, and offense is the ability to handle outgoing damage through nukes, dots, buffs, and debuffs.  If furies and other offensive priests can dispense damage more effectively, then templars and other defensive priests should handle incoming damage more effectively.  You should not have both.  If there are situations where a fury is better defensively than a templar, then there should be situations where a templar is better offensively.</p> <p>On the other hand, if all priests are to be equivalent defensively, then the fury offensive advantage has to go (and any other priest's offensive advantages).  If there really is a problem, and I'm not sure that there is because I rarely group with other priests and certainly don't solo them, then it should be fixed.  Each balance style will work for me, although I do have preferences.  In the end, though, the whole package has to balance--not just nukes and heals--that is thinking too one-dimensionally. </p> <div></div><hr></blockquote> Lol, so basically what you have said in two paragraphs is we should have more utility and buffs to compensate for higher Fury DPS. Which is fine <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> You agree with us then. Stop arguing <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Please.</span><div></div>

[Orodru]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR> <DIV>Nobody should really be telling you that you are wrong unless you are Orodruin.   I don't remember anyone in particular saying to you personally you are wrong but I'll look back on a few of your posts when I'm done replying.   I know I've personally said I don't think DPS is the way to go with our class and I can tell you for fact it wasn't in the design of clerics.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The problem with your logic is with the different types of players (and this has been gone over to death but we'll rehash again).   Soloers want DPS and could give two craps about grouping abilities.  Raiders and some groupers could give two craps about DPS and want more "utlitiy."   Most groupers are ok with our with our healing abilities but some would like enhanced healing.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So the question is "What do you change?"   We can't have everything or it unbalances us against the other classes.  More heals, more utilities, more DPS.....you might as well give us a Templar hack.  Put yourself in SOE's shoes for a second.   What do you say to those 3 groups?  Which side do you take or do you compromise?  How do you compromise?  How are you going to respond to the complaints of other classes?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Why not change it all. Who says we can't have everything (assuming we really mean every reasonable thing)?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I think it's reasonable to want to do more DPS, in line with other priests.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I also think it's reasonable to want more diverse and meaningful utility.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I'm not so sure it's reasonalbe to want to "enhance healing" - we may very well have all the healing we need.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Who (besides you) said or implied that we can only have some fixes but not other fixes?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I want my class fixed so that it's playable again. Playable by all play styles. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I think we CAN get that.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>But maybe not. Not if we keep having players come in here and tell us we are wrong to want it, and we can't have it.</FONT><BR></DIV>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Alephin wrote: <P>I'm not sure this is a hopeless desire as long as SOE intends to have damage potential (offense) differ among priests.  If offense unquestionably differs among priests (as it clearly does), then defense should too.  Defense, however, includes much more than healing.  It includes stuns, mezzes (even the lousy templar type), mitigation buffs, attack debuffs, and hit point buffs.  Basically, defense is the ability to handle incoming damage, and offense is the ability to handle outgoing damage through nukes, dots, buffs, and debuffs.  If furies and other offensive priests can dispense damage more effectively, then templars and other defensive priests should handle incoming damage more effectively.  You should not have both.  If there are situations where a fury is better defensively than a templar, then there should be situations where a templar is better offensively.</P> <P>On the other hand, if all priests are to be equivalent defensively, then the fury offensive advantage has to go (and any other priest's offensive advantages).  If there really is a problem, and I'm not sure that there is because I rarely group with other priests and certainly don't solo them, then it should be fixed.  Each balance style will work for me, although I do have preferences.  In the end, though, the whole package has to balance--not just nukes and heals--that is thinking too one-dimensionally.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Lol, so basically what you have said in two paragraphs is we should have more utility and buffs to compensate for higher Fury DPS. Which is fine <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> You agree with us then. Stop arguing <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR><BR>Please.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P align=left><BR>Actually, that isn't what I said.  If that is what I had wanted to say, I would have just said it, rather than using two paragraphs to talk about offensive and defensive balance.  My point was (and is) that defensive priests wanting to have a clear defensive advantage over offensive priests is not necessarily an unrealizable dream, unlike what you had stated in your previous post with respect to templars wanting unquestionably better healing being "the worst in the bunch".  I think that defensive classes such as templars are within their rights to expect unquestionably better defensive abilities than offensive classes such as furies--if there are to be offensive and defensive healer versions--but the improved ability may or may not come from healing spells.</P> <P align=left>I didn't mention a single thing about increasing a templar's utility or buffs.  Don't put words in my mouth.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P align=left>Please.</P> <P align=left>Alephin</P>

[Caethre]

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Orodruin wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Why not change it all. Who says we can't have everything (assuming we really mean every reasonable thing)?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I think it's reasonable to want to do more DPS, in line with other priests.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I also think it's reasonable to want more diverse and meaningful utility.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I'm not so sure it's reasonalbe to want to "enhance healing" - we may very well have all the healing we need.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Who (besides you) said or implied that we can only have some fixes but not other fixes?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ffff00 size=3>I want my class fixed so that it's playable again. Playable by all play styles. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ffff00 size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ffff00 size=3>I think we CAN get that.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>But maybe not. Not if we keep having players come in here and tell us we are wrong to want it, and we can't have it.</FONT><BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Absolutely, sir.. Absolutely!</P> <P> </P>

[Andu]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Alephin wrote:<BR> <BR> <P align=left>Actually, that isn't what I said.  If that is what I had wanted to say, I would have just said it, rather than using two paragraphs to talk about offensive and defensive balance.  My point was (and is) that defensive priests wanting to have a clear defensive advantage over offensive priests is not necessarily an unrealizable dream, unlike what you had stated in your previous post with respect to templars wanting unquestionably better healing being "the worst in the bunch".  I think that defensive classes such as templars are within their rights to expect unquestionably better defensive abilities than offensive classes such as furies--if there are to be offensive and defensive healer versions--but the improved ability may or may not come from healing spells.</P> <P align=left>I didn't mention a single thing about increasing a templar's utility or buffs.  Don't put words in my mouth.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P align=left>Please.</P> <P align=left>Alephin</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Look, we really are getting into detail now and I suspect that this is something that could only be resolved face to face with a beer and an hour or two. Certainly beyond the scope of a message board :smileyhappy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, I will try and explain why it is that I still think I haven't put words into your mouth.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Firstly - to deal with "the worst in the bunch" brigade. As I said, they are the ones looking to have their healing, not their buffs/debuffs/utility, just their healing improved beyond the average held by other healing classes. They are the worst of the bunch because they clutter the forums and complicate issues when they have precisely zero chance of their wishes ever being realised. SOE have said time and again that healing will be equal.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I know what you are saying in terms of offensive/defensive. It is just never going to happen in that way. That plan was the one SOE had before LU13. Furies nuke things to death quicker, so they cause less damage, so their healing is weaker. Templars buff their parties hp's and heal the damage they receive so their healing is stronger to compensate. Inquisitors heal as well as Templars but debuff the mobs so they go down faster. It was all a great plan on paper. It just had the catch that it could never really work as each situation could be so radically different from another.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So they have to all intents and purposes abandoned this plan. Now all the classes, taking DPS/utility/whatever out of the equation heal roughly equally.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, you said "templars are within their rights to expect unquestionably better defensive abilities than offensive classes such as furies--if there are to be offensive and defensive healer versions--but the improved ability may or may not come from healing spells". </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Firstly, the improved ability may NOT come from healing spells, as all classes must heal equally.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So that just leaves us with our buffs and utility. You are asking, whether you realise it or not, for our utility and buffs to be increased as Templars "expect unquestionably better defensive abilities than offensive classes such as furies". Those are your words. If that is not a request for an improvement in buffing ability I don't know what is.<BR></DIV>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> They are the worst of the bunch because they clutter the forums and complicate issues when they have precisely zero chance of their wishes ever being realised. SOE have said time and again that healing will be equal.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>That's certainly one interpretation of what SOE's stated, but I would disagree that what you've read is what I've read/heard.  Then again, what could I possibly know, right?  I'm just that Kendricke guy.  :smileywink:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Certainly SOE has made it clear that the intention of the game's design is to allow all healers to keep a typical group alive in a typical situation.  However, they've never once stated that they "healing will be equal".  Actually, Moorgard's stated quite the opposite, noting recently that pure equality is not possible.  This would be in line with what we were told at Summit 1 and what I've heard was told to the attendees of Summit 2.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I could be wrong, of course.  Obviously you could provide a quote that clearly states "healing will be equal" and I'll be forced to acknowledge that.  ...or you could pull a quote that states that all healers will be "able to perform their primary role equally" and I can argue that it's not quite the same thing.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Andu]

<P>Bah, do I really have to go back and trawl through Moorgards posts just to prove myself wrong <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Ok, I'll give it a quick go.</P>

[KingOfF00LS]

<div></div>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1&query.id=0#M1<p><b><font color="#ffff99" size="3">Won’t balancing become a real issue with that many classes?</font></b></p><p><font color="#ffffff" size="3">Class balance is always a complicated issue, but the archetype system allows us to manage it much more effectively.<span>  </span>Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level.<span>  </span>Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and <u><b>each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well</b></u>.<span>  </span>If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system.</font></p><p><font color="#ffffff" size="3">--------------------------------------- </font></p> <p><font color="#ffffff" size="3">Now seriously, let it go with the "SOE didn't say healing should be equal" garbage.  This has been proven time and time again, and when you say two people of different classes should be able to fill a function "equally well" then the truth and meaning is obvious.  Enough of the parsing words crap, looking for a possible loophole to prove you were right.  It's there in black and white and the meaning is obvious.</font></p> <div></div>

[Andu]

<P>Thanks, I was getting bored looking.</P> <P>He said it a bit more forcefully somewhere else, the above is open to the offensive/defensive argument above. On the whole however, it has been made clear that post LU-13 all healing classes will be able to heal a group on a fairly level footing.</P>

[Nari]

Well, I don't care what he said. I want to be able to heal for more. It may sound unreasonable, but it is what I want. I would like to leave how they accomplish this to them, but who knows how that could be interpreted... "Sure you can heal for more, but you can't equip a weapon and have to run through the zones naked." OK by me, but it sounds like more of a punishment for the other players. <div></div>

[Andu]

<P>Hey, I think we all want it. Not sure about running around naked but I get your meaning.</P> <P>It's just not going to happen though. There is no longer any "pure" healing class, there was never supposed to be one initially to be fair.</P> <P>That's why I'm suggesting everyone who feels this way takes a deep breath and lets it go. Then we can all concentrate on improving the other aspects of our class which are indefensibly lacking.</P>

[KingOfF00LS]

<span><blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:Well, I don't care what he said. I want to be able to heal for more. It may sound unreasonable, but it is what I want. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Me too.  It's the whole reason I made a cleric.  Clerics historically have always been *the* healer, with others able to sub in depending on what you're doing or acting as secondary healers.  And it's not unreasonable to have that wish either.  It's why the vast majority of us gave up things like melee, nukes, invis, sow, evac, damage shields, and so forth and so on....so we could be the clear and inarguable best at the one thing we can do -- heal. But they've made it clear that it's not going to happen so I'm trying to work within the system of what seems possible given the current situation.  I think it's extremely reasonable, as I've asked for before, to lessen the cast and recast times on several of our heal spells.  Although there are other things needed, just starting here and making some seemingly minor tweaks to timers would go a long way for me in happiness with the class.  Then worry about the utility and dps issues later which would in turn be lessened by virtue of having the more appropriate and functioning healing ability due to the more reasonable timers. So anyway, let's get the healing timers fixed first and worry about the dps/utility later.....that's my opinion at least.</span><div></div>

[Caethre]

<DIV>OOC.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I actually do not see anything wrong with different Templars taking slightly different tacks from eachother. I think of such as just different emphasis, and it is natural, and it's all good as long as one playstyle's adherents don't by implication ridicule the desires of anothers. There are two common directions described for our class right now (they are not mutually exclusive, this is just to summarize the concepts) - </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(A) Some of us will focus on getting the healing advantage back, and not worry about the dps/utility issue (even if SoE have indicated quite strongly so far that we are not intended to have such an advantage), because we feel as clerics, we are meant to be the 'main/pure healers', and this belief is inherently a reasonable one.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(B) Others of us will look at SoE's statement of equal healing and take it more at face value, and therefore quite reasonably request equality in areas of DPS and Utility with other priests as well.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have seen no-one on these boards calling for BOTH considerably superior healing AND equal DPS/Utility to other priests, that would be unbalancing of course but in the opposite direction (overpowered instead of underpowered). Personally, by this point, I could go for A or B, either would make us viable, just in different ways. I always used to be very much in position (A), but over time I have taken on board what I understand is SoE's position and adopted position (B) now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But in the end, almost all of us want the same thing, if not in the same way - we want to feel of value in our own playstyles, not feel like the red-headed stepchild or the XP leech.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Of course, there are always the few who say we are fine, as the nails are being hammered into the coffin they'd still be saying it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Don't give up hope. Just ... don't stay silent either. Keep giving your feedback on what you'd like to see, every one of you, and make sure that it is not just one or two posters with postcounts into the thousands drowning out the rest of us with just their volume of posts telling the rest of us we are all "wrong".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Felishanna / Annaelisa</DIV>

[Mayl]

<span>Replies in <font color="#ff0000">Red</font><blockquote><hr>Anduri wrote:<div></div> <p>Hey, I think we all want it. Not sure about running around naked but I get your meaning.</p> <p><b>It's just not going to happen though</b>. There is <b>no longer any "pure" healing class</b>, there was never supposed to be one initially to be fair. </p> <p><font color="#ff0000">How do you know for 100% that it wont happen? No gut feeling answers. Cold. hard facts. And for the second part. Then what is a Templar right now? Got any utilites that does not have to do with healing (that you actually use)? Templars are a pure healer as it stands. That is what we are designed to do. If the devs did not see us as pure healers, why on earth did we get lotto heals? </font> </p> <p><b>That's why I'm suggesting everyone who feels this way takes a deep breath and lets it go</b>. <b>Then we can all concentrate on improving the other aspects of our class which are indefensibly lacking</b>.</p> <div></div><font color="#ff0000">I have a suggestion. Take a deep breath, let it out slow. and repeat to yourself..... I am a pure healer. The class as a whole is lacking. Where to begin? </font><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Alephin wrote:<BR> <BR> <P align=left>Actually, that isn't what I said.  If that is what I had wanted to say, I would have just said it, rather than using two paragraphs to talk about offensive and defensive balance.  My point was (and is) that defensive priests wanting to have a clear defensive advantage over offensive priests is not necessarily an unrealizable dream, unlike what you had stated in your previous post with respect to templars wanting unquestionably better healing being "the worst in the bunch".  I think that defensive classes such as templars are within their rights to expect unquestionably better defensive abilities than offensive classes such as furies--if there are to be offensive and defensive healer versions--but the improved ability may or may not come from healing spells.</P> <P align=left>I didn't mention a single thing about increasing a templar's utility or buffs.  Don't put words in my mouth.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P align=left>Please.</P> <P align=left>Alephin</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Look, we really are getting into detail now and I suspect that this is something that could only be resolved face to face with a beer and an hour or two. Certainly beyond the scope of a message board :smileyhappy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, I will try and explain why it is that I still think I haven't put words into your mouth.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Firstly - to deal with "the worst in the bunch" brigade. As I said, they are the ones looking to have their healing, not their buffs/debuffs/utility, just their healing improved beyond the average held by other healing classes. They are the worst of the bunch because they clutter the forums and complicate issues when they have precisely zero chance of their wishes ever being realised. SOE have said time and again that healing will be equal.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I know what you are saying in terms of offensive/defensive. It is just never going to happen in that way. That plan was the one SOE had before LU13. Furies nuke things to death quicker, so they cause less damage, so their healing is weaker. Templars buff their parties hp's and heal the damage they receive so their healing is stronger to compensate. Inquisitors heal as well as Templars but debuff the mobs so they go down faster. It was all a great plan on paper. It just had the catch that it could never really work as each situation could be so radically different from another.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So they have to all intents and purposes abandoned this plan. Now all the classes, taking DPS/utility/whatever out of the equation heal roughly equally.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, you said "templars are within their rights to expect unquestionably better defensive abilities than offensive classes such as furies--if there are to be offensive and defensive healer versions--but the improved ability may or may not come from healing spells".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Firstly, the improved ability may NOT come from healing spells, as all classes must heal equally.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So that just leaves us with our buffs and utility. You are asking, whether you realise it or not, for our utility and buffs to be increased as Templars "expect unquestionably better defensive abilities than offensive classes such as furies". Those are your words. If that is not a request for an improvement in buffing ability I don't know what is.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Our difference, I believe, is that you assume too much about what I have said.  I haven't <EM>asked</EM> for anything to this point.  I have simply laid out how I think things could be done, because I haven't made up my mind on the issue.  I'm not sure that the developers have either, because they haven't lately said anything, and their earlier statements about "healing equally" are vague and make me wonder what they actually mean.</P> <P>Frankly, I'm unpersuaded that furies are defensively equal to templars, and I'm also unpersuaded that they are intended to be.   The problem is that defense is much harder to quantify.  Damage output and healing are frequently parsed.  But has anyone parsed how much damage was mitigated because of buffs that we already have, or how much trauma damage curate procs prevent over time?  How about parsing the damage reduction from 14 seconds of pacify?  In a heavy damage situation, does a templar have time to contribute in ways other than straight healing while they wait for recast timers, where a fury has to spam heal their small directs?  </P> <P>Before LU#13, there was a huge discrepancy between the defensive abilities of healers.  That discrepancy has certainly been reduced, but has it been eliminated?  I don't know.  Was it supposed to be completely eliminated?  Again, I don't know.  I've seen detailed comparisons between the different nukes and heals, but other than that it has been, for the most part, complaints that "their nukes are better than ours" and "they have more healing spells than I do"; that is all fine, but it isn't very persuasive to me because there is much more to offense and defense than just nuking and healing.</P> <P>What I <EM>ask</EM> for is that if offensive healers (assuming they are supposed to exist) have a large, important part of the single-group game in which they are clearly superior (such as the low-healing grind scenario), then defensive healers need another large, important part of the single-group game where they excel.  There are many ways of doing this, and they may or may not require changes to our buffs.  If offensive healers are not intended to exist, then someone needs to look at classes again, because some healers have a clear offensive advantage, which tends to show up in easy groups and while solo. </P> <P>Soloing is a whole different animal.  The only thing I'll say here is that I do not want to sacrifice healing ability for soloability.  Beyond that, I'm fine with some solo adjustments.  I also ask that if they don't intend to give us a way to solo a bit more quickly, that they open up some significant solo quest content that allows non-dps oriented classes something to do that is more in-character with their professions.</P> <P>Utility keeps coming up, but I refrain from talking about utility because it is so hard to define.  It also isn't that important to me.  The world of adventuring in Norrath revolves around combat.  Players are there to kill mobs together.  Sow doesn't matter.  Neither does evac.  Neither do fancy animal shapes.  Combat is all about offense and defense.  Those must balance.  As far as utility, it wouldn't bother me if we got some cool things, but I'm not gonna spend a bunch of time campaigning for it.</P> <P>Alephin</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Andu]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Maylar wrote:<span>Replies in <font color="#ff0000">Red</font><blockquote><hr>Anduri wrote:<div></div> <p>Hey, I think we all want it. Not sure about running around naked but I get your meaning.</p> <p><b>It's just not going to happen though</b>. There is <b>no longer any "pure" healing class</b>, there was never supposed to be one initially to be fair. </p> <p><font color="#ff0000">How do you know for 100% that it wont happen? No gut feeling answers. Cold. hard facts. And for the second part. Then what is a Templar right now? Got any utilites that does not have to do with healing (that you actually use)? Templars are a pure healer as it stands. That is what we are designed to do. If the devs did not see us as pure healers, why on earth did we get lotto heals? </font> </p> <p><b>That's why I'm suggesting everyone who feels this way takes a deep breath and lets it go</b>. <b>Then we can all concentrate on improving the other aspects of our class which are indefensibly lacking</b>.</p> <div></div><font color="#ff0000">I have a suggestion. Take a deep breath, let it out slow. and repeat to yourself..... I am a pure healer. The class as a whole is lacking. Where to begin? </font><hr></blockquote></span><div></div><hr></blockquote> You know, I totally agree with you. We are a pure healing class, or at least we should be. Just from the posts the Devs have made it seems totally improbable that we will ever have more than a marginal advantage in healing over the other priests. If someone can point me to a post, any post, made by any of the Dev team to suggest otherwise then I will drop all this and start banging the drum for improved healing now. Unfortunately, I cannot find one from which I can draw any hope. So instead I'm taking what I see as a more realistic view of what can be achieved with our class. A bit like Caethre indicated in her post - I would love for A, cannot see it happening so I'll take B instead. I guess we can agree to disagree on our approaches. I just wish we could all sing to the same hymn sheet but I can see that that is even more improbable than our healing being significantly boosted <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Anduri on <span class=date_text>12-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:56 PM</span>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Of course, there are always the few who say we are fine, as the nails are being hammered into the coffin they'd still be saying it. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Personally, contrary to the above generalization I tend to see posted quite a bit, I know of few folks posting on the forums that the class is "just fine".  I do know quite a few, like myself, who are concentrating first on bugs and other tweaks...and I'm gladdened to see that we're actually seeing results from that effort.  Seems that simply stating the actual facts is more than enough to get all the attention we require.  </P> <P>I guess I'm just not as pessimistic as some, claiming the class is broken and unfit to be played.  If that makes me a bad person because I don't immediately abandon my Templar and start up another class, then so be it.  I'm willing to take that sort of heat.  :smileywink:</P> <P>I realize that my more optimistic view makes me an easy target.  I can't tell you the number of times I've been referred to derogatorily because I don't buy into the negative hype quite so quickly, but that seems to be a small minority resorting to such tactics.  It's good to see that the majority of Templars here are able to disagree without being disagreeable.  I hope that we're all able to continue to come together instead of inciting each other in order to acheive the common goals, regardless of whether or not we agree on all of the goals.</P> <P>We all have agendas here, and we all have differing methods by which we're willing to utilize in order to acheive those agendas.  Frankly, there's simply not going to be any one definition of the Templar class that will ever truly satisify every player. Even so, it's good to see dialogues like this because it brings more viewpoints to the table.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Timaarit]

Well Kend, you were proven wrong with the issue about SoE claiming that all healers will heal equally. Does your silence about it mean that next time someone says templars will not get improved healing since SoE has stated that every pries heals equally, you will blissfully forget that statement and claim once again that SoE has made no such statement? Since this is not the first time you have made that claim and proven to be wrong. <div></div>

[Helmarf]

<DIV>This is xactly how i feel and what i was about to post, couldnt say it better my self.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thanks Orodruin.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And i realy hope other classes stop posting in other classes forum just for telling that they want this and that,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You have youre own place to do that <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR>Well Kend, you were proven wrong with the issue about SoE claiming that all healers will heal equally. Does your silence about it mean that next time someone says templars will not get improved healing since SoE has stated that every pries heals equally, you will blissfully forget that statement and claim once again that SoE has made no such statement? Since this is not the first time you have made that claim and proven to be wrong.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>You've not proven anything regarding Archetype equality, other than you have a differing opinion on what the developers have stated than I do. </P> <P>You can believe the interpretation you wish to believe, but it's not going to change what I've heard and how it fits with what I've read.  It doesn't validate your intepretations on what the developers have stated, but it's your right to believe such is the case.  I can't apparantly alter your perception - your reality, such as it were.</P> <P>Basically, what it comes down to is when developers stated that <EM>"each member of an Archeype will be able to fill [their main role in a group] equally well" </EM>when the game was released.   The specific quote and context can be found <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1&query.id=0#M1" target=_blank>here </A> in the original November 2004 quote (made 10 months before the revamp).  Of course, you can find a more recent version of the quote <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=68727#M68727" target=_blank>here </A>in the Shadowknight forums or even <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=15408" target=_blank>here </A>when I first brought this quote to the attention of the Templar forums.</P> <P>In the more recent quote I noted above, Moorgard clarifies earlier views by stating clearly:  "<EM>Tanking--like <STRONG>healing</STRONG>, like damage, like control--<STRONG>is not meant to be perfectly equal</STRONG>; <STRONG><U>it is meant to be comparable</U> </STRONG>while still having pros and cons depending on the situation."</EM>  (emphasis mine).  Now, you can argue what you want regarding what is and is not "equality" or intended as design.  For myself, the above statement clearly backs up what the First Summit Attendees heard in June and again what the Second Summit Attendees apparantly heard in September - that perfect equality cannot and will not exist, nor is it the intention of the design. </P> <P>Moorgard solidified this point in regards to soloing in an earlier post from this year (after the revamp still) where he stated:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><EM>That said, soloing isn't meant to necessarily be equally efficient for everyone. Just as some classes have a lot of benefits they bring to a group, some classes have ablilites that work exceptionally well for soloing. But we've worked hard to ensure that everyone can solo if they chose to do so. </EM> -<A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=134146&query.id=0#M134146" target=_blank><FONT color=#c8c1b5>Moorgard, September 13, 2005</FONT></A></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Note that he's again pointing out that not all classes are intended to be equal while soloing, only that soloing is indeed possible for every class.  Some classes will excel while others will merely suffice.  Though not a direct proof of my interpretation of the "all priests being equal healers" statement (where I feel that such a statement is untrue - not merely because I feel developers have said so, but because of my personal experiences) - though not a direct proof, it's still heavily supportive of the concept that equality is not intended, whereas basic abilities to perform a certain task comparably well are.</P> <P>My own belief (which you're free to disagree with - and likely will) is that all priests should be able to perform the basics of healing a group in a typical group setting, but that some priests will certainly be better at the task (especially situationally) than others.  Not all priests heal equally (this is mathmatically provable - even without taking differing situations into account).  Combine this fact with the above statements, plus what Summit attendees have reported, and you have my reasoning for believing as I do regarding the fact that the intended design is not based around class equality, but merely the ability for classes to perform basic group roles and functions at a baseline level.</P> <P>Prior to the revamp, not all priests COULD effectively keep a group standing in most situations.  After the revamp, this is no longer the case...and it's been the stance I've adhered to for some time now.</P> <P> </P> <P>NOTE:  In a post about how it's wrong to tell other players they are wrong to express their beliefs, you tell me clearly I am wrong in my beliefs.  Just some food for thought.  :smileywink:</P> <P> </P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>12-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:53 AM</span>

[Gcha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <P> </P> <P>NOTE:  In a post about how it's wrong to tell other players they are wrong to express their beliefs, you tell me clearly I am wrong in my beliefs.  Just some food for thought.  :smileywink:</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>There's a big difference between telling someone they're wrong TO EXPRESS their beliefs and telling them their beliefs are wrong.</DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <p>You've not proven anything regarding Archetype equality, other than you have a differing opinion on what the developers have stated than I do. <span class="time_text"></span></p><hr></blockquote>Wrong. I actually read that statement, there is no room for opinions regarding that.</span><div></div>

[Andu]

<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>

[Timaarit]

<P>**POST 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>01:20 PM</span>

[Takeo1]

<P>**POST 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>02:43 PM</span>

[SenorPhrog]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Orodruin wrote:</P> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Why not change it all. Who says we can't have everything (assuming we really mean every reasonable thing)?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I think it's reasonable to want to do more DPS, in line with other priests.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I also think it's reasonable to want more diverse and meaningful utility.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I'm not so sure it's reasonalbe to want to "enhance healing" - we may very well have all the healing we need.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>Who (besides you) said or implied that we can only have some fixes but not other fixes?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I want my class fixed so that it's playable again. Playable by all play styles. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>I think we CAN get that.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3>But maybe not. Not if we keep having players come in here and tell us we are wrong to want it, and we can't have it.</FONT><BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>You're getting to the heart of it.   You <EM>feel</EM> we should have more DPS.  I <EM>feel</EM> we should have tweaked buffs,healings, and utility.   Both of us are entitled to our opinions but either of us could be wrong.  I at no point said we couldn't have both but common sense would dictate a push in both areas would probably overpower us.   Ultimately its up to the people that make this game not the few hundred people that post to these forums all the time.   You're still looking at this from your own perspective and not SOE's.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok lets play it your way and say they enhance our DPS by upping our nukes (which pretty much seems to go against the design of Clerics in this game) and gives us some more healing power with our utility.   Now the solo players are happy because they can solo better, the group people are even more happy because now they can heal effectively and nuke the crap out of stuff too.   Now we can get the parse committee from all over to debate whose got more healing power but most people would agree in the average situation (not raiding)  the Templar comes out on top.   So now you have great healing and DPS which makes Templar a more viable class than the others.   I'm not really interested in seeing another dramatic cross forum debate over healing and DPS and the classes but I <EM>feel</EM> that increasing both wouldn't work.</DIV>

[Gcha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>You're getting to the heart of it.   You <EM>feel</EM> we should have more DPS.  I <EM>feel</EM> we should have tweaked buffs,healings, and utility.   <FONT color=#99ff00> I feel we should have one or the other =)  See, that's being flexible <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></FONT>    </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok lets play it your way and say they enhance our DPS by upping our nukes (which pretty much seems to go against the design of Clerics in this game) .... /snip </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00>What IS the "design" of the templar in this game, btw.  That's been one of my primary issues from the git go.  Aside from basing the class on this IMO ill-concerived proc and lotto healing scheme, I don't feel there is any coherent design.  We have a conglomeration of odds and ends.  Who gives clerics a mez spell?  Only somebody who has run out of ideas and needs *something* to give them to achieve *cough* "balance.  Who gives clerics translocate.  That one really baffles me ... if nothing else it gives me a good laugh.  I don't care if the stuff works or not (and it's highly debatable with some of it, no matter how much some want to strain to say it's useful) ... the point is this is a patchwork class which lacks a coherent design.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00>In EQ1 I thoroughly understood the design of my cleric.  It all made sense.  In EQ2, my Fury makes sense ... the Fury is a well-designed class with a sensible grouping of spells.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#99ff00>After playing alts and other games for the last few weeks, I loaded my templar up a couple days ago to see I missed him and would be rejuvenated.   Well ... not.  He was worse than I even remembered.  Yeah, sure, I can get enough healing done [note I didn't just say "heal enough"] by casting these peculiar spells that do nothing until the right event happens.  /Yawn. I don't find satisfaction in this.  I like to heal proactively - not reactively - and in my not-so-humble opinion a CLERIC should be a PROACTIVE HEALER ... a CLERIC is not some backdoor healer who keeps people alive by the functional equivalent of slapping on healing-shield potions and roll-the-dice casino heals.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#99ff00>When I tried to solo him, well ... holy crap ... this is torture.  In a game which is designed tio permit extensive soloing there is just no excuse for one class to solo so slowly ... and if any other class solos as slowly, then they should be fixed too.  If we're simply going to have to have instant gratification, well, fine, let's get on with it ... let's not just provide it for most people but not for others.</FONT></P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My 99 cents :smileyvery-happy:</DIV>

[SenorPhrog]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>You're getting to the heart of it.   You <EM>feel</EM> we should have more DPS.  I <EM>feel</EM> we should have tweaked buffs,healings, and utility.   <FONT color=#99ff00> I feel we should have one or the other =)  See, that's being flexible <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></FONT>    </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok lets play it your way and say they enhance our DPS by upping our nukes (which pretty much seems to go against the design of Clerics in this game) .... /snip </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00>What IS the "design" of the templar in this game, btw.  That's been one of my primary issues from the git go.  Aside from basing the class on this IMO ill-concerived proc and lotto healing scheme, I don't feel there is any coherent design.  We have a conglomeration of odds and ends.  Who gives clerics a mez spell?  Only somebody who has run out of ideas and needs *something* to give them to achieve *cough* "balance.  Who gives clerics translocate.  That one really baffles me ... if nothing else it gives me a good laugh.  I don't care if the stuff works or not (and it's highly debatable with some of it, no matter how much some want to strain to say it's useful) ... the point is this is a patchwork class which lacks a coherent design.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00>In EQ1 I thoroughly understood the design of my cleric.  It all made sense.  In EQ2, my Fury makes sense ... the Fury is a well-designed class with a sensible grouping of spells.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#99ff00>After playing alts and other games for the last few weeks, I loaded my templar up a couple days ago to see I missed him and would be rejuvenated.   Well ... not.  He was worse than I even remembered.  Yeah, sure, I can get enough healing done [note I didn't just say "heal enough"] by casting these peculiar spells that do nothing until the right event happens.  /Yawn. I don't find satisfaction in this.  I like to heal proactively - not reactively - and in my not-so-humble opinion a CLERIC should be a PROACTIVE HEALER ... a CLERIC is not some backdoor healer who keeps people alive by the functional equivalent of slapping on healing-shield potions and roll-the-dice casino heals.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#99ff00>When I tried to solo him, well ... holy crap ... this is torture.  In a game which is designed tio permit extensive soloing there is just no excuse for one class to solo so slowly ... and if any other class solos as slowly, then they should be fixed too.  If we're simply going to have to have instant gratification, well, fine, let's get on with it ... let's not just provide it for most people but not for others.</FONT></P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My 99 cents :smileyvery-happy:</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I completely agree with you that we should get one or the other and not both and that was my point.   When I say "design" all I'm basing that on is what I've seen from Templars since launch.  Its of course subjective and prone to change and more importantly just my opinion.   We seem to be a support group that works on the defensive, not the offensive hence my reluctance to want DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for realistically what Clerics get spell wise?  Come on man.  If you played EQ1 you know very well after Veilous they starting getting crazy.   Who gives Clerics an AoE like Words of Shadow, or Imbuing stones?  The mez doesn't seem any less ridiculous than the roots that Clerics had in EQ1.  Now the translocate....man I'm going to have to give that to you.   I can't make heads or tails of how that got in there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I understand where you are coming from on the proactive healing but I don't seen any of the priest classes as proactive healers.  Unless you are using single point heals for burst damage you are spending your time debuffing and stunning.</DIV>

[Gcha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gchang wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Radar-X wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>You're getting to the heart of it.   You <EM>feel</EM> we should have more DPS.  I <EM>feel</EM> we should have tweaked buffs,healings, and utility.   <FONT color=#99ff00> I feel we should have one or the other =)  See, that's being flexible <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></FONT>    </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok lets play it your way and say they enhance our DPS by upping our nukes (which pretty much seems to go against the design of Clerics in this game) .... /snip </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00>What IS the "design" of the templar in this game, btw.  That's been one of my primary issues from the git go.  Aside from basing the class on this IMO ill-concerived proc and lotto healing scheme, I don't feel there is any coherent design.  We have a conglomeration of odds and ends.  Who gives clerics a mez spell?  Only somebody who has run out of ideas and needs *something* to give them to achieve *cough* "balance.  Who gives clerics translocate.  That one really baffles me ... if nothing else it gives me a good laugh.  I don't care if the stuff works or not (and it's highly debatable with some of it, no matter how much some want to strain to say it's useful) ... the point is this is a patchwork class which lacks a coherent design.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#99ff00>In EQ1 I thoroughly understood the design of my cleric.  It all made sense.  In EQ2, my Fury makes sense ... the Fury is a well-designed class with a sensible grouping of spells.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#99ff00>After playing alts and other games for the last few weeks, I loaded my templar up a couple days ago to see I missed him and would be rejuvenated.   Well ... not.  He was worse than I even remembered.  Yeah, sure, I can get enough healing done [note I didn't just say "heal enough"] by casting these peculiar spells that do nothing until the right event happens.  /Yawn. I don't find satisfaction in this.  I like to heal proactively - not reactively - and in my not-so-humble opinion a CLERIC should be a PROACTIVE HEALER ... a CLERIC is not some backdoor healer who keeps people alive by the functional equivalent of slapping on healing-shield potions and roll-the-dice casino heals.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#99ff00>When I tried to solo him, well ... holy crap ... this is torture.  In a game which is designed tio permit extensive soloing there is just no excuse for one class to solo so slowly ... and if any other class solos as slowly, then they should be fixed too.  If we're simply going to have to have instant gratification, well, fine, let's get on with it ... let's not just provide it for most people but not for others.</FONT></P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My 99 cents :smileyvery-happy:</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I completely agree with you that we should get one or the other and not both and that was my point.   When I say "design" all I'm basing that on is what I've seen from Templars since launch.  <FONT color=#cc0000><FONT color=#ff0000>Yeah, I know =)  You just provided a convenient platform to launch from <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></FONT> </FONT> Its of course subjective and prone to change and more importantly just my opinion.   We seem to be a support group that works on the defensive, not the offensive hence my reluctance to want DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for realistically what Clerics get spell wise?  Come on man.  If you played EQ1 you know very well after Veilous they starting getting crazy.   Who gives Clerics an AoE like Words of Shadow, or Imbuing stones?  <FONT color=#ff0000>No argument ... but this makes the point I have been raising for weeks.  Sure, give out all the whacked out toy and bizarro spells down the line - when you're running short on ideas to round out the basics.</FONT>  <FONT color=#ff0000>But don't base a class design on them.</FONT>  The mez doesn't seem any less ridiculous than the roots that Clerics had in EQ1.  <FONT color=#ff0000>Given the overall structure of EQ1, particularly as regarded soloing, I don't think there's any way a cleric could have soloed anything beyond a green without root ... there just wasn't any other way to solo anything meaningful but root and shoot, or, in many cases, root-shoot-reroot-med-rinse-repeat.  (dang I loved those epic 15-20 minute fights where'd you'd have to med up 3-4 times to finish something ..... something which is entirely missing in EQ2). That is not the case with mez in this game.  I rarely find it useful for anything, and, in fact, it annoys me to have it.  I am a CLERIC, why do I have mez.  Now maybe if they'd wanted to provide a "Control Undead" spell or some such, that would have made some sense.  </FONT>Now the translocate....man I'm going to have to give that to you.   I can't make heads or tails of how that got in there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I understand where you are coming from on the proactive healing but I don't seen any of the priest classes as proactive healers.  Unless you are using single point heals for burst damage you are spending your time debuffing and stunning.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Well a Fury is what I am referring to as a proactive healer.  You are much more able to deal with a problem when it arises, not by spreading a bunch of procs and lottos around in advance and hoping they go off when needed.  With a Fury, even though you're partially dependent on HOTs, you KNOW how much healing is coming in when, and you deal with it ... and it WILL be there WHERE and WHEN *YOU* scheduled it to be ... rather than hoping you win the lotto.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000> For a while I was complaining about where the remedy and celestial lines went ... then I rolled a Fury and found out.  Remember "pulling people out of the purple" in EQ?  You can't really do that with an EQ2 cleric.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Message Edited by Gchang on <SPAN class=date_text>12-05-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:07 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Gchang on <span class=date_text>12-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:13 AM</span>