Templar Solo Comparison

[socrates3]

All, So I just performed a very interesting experiment regarding Templar soloing and now I am completely convinced that one should not solo with this class unless they want to waste inordinate amounts of time. I stopped playing my Templar at 39 and started to level a Necro. Now that my Necro is 39 I went back to the Feerot to do a little comparison on how long it takes to kill the Huuptic mobs on the beach. Even <i>without the use of my pet </i>my Necro is so much stronger than my Templar for soloing. Let me repeat that, yes, <i>without the use of my pet </i>a Necro can easily outsolo a templar. Keep in mind that my spells are approximately the same on both toons, a mix of app I, app IV and Adept III. I found that with the Necro roots, fear, and life tap spells, as well as the multiple DoTs, I could take down groups of Huuptics much more quickly then the Templar could ever hope to, again, not even using my main pet here guys!! Once you add the pet, its simply no comparison whatsoever. Also, Huuptics come in different mob types (caster, scout, etc) so the comparison is fairly even. Also, with my avoidance at near 40 percent, I hardly even get touched in combat. Furthermore, most of my equipment is more than 10 levels below me (for instance, my robe is a level 27 robe). My Templar is in full feyiron with mostly even con jewelry. My conclusion: Don't solo with your Templar, save him for groups. This is where he is the best. SOE should not claim that all classes can solo equally, because this is definitely not true. Descartes (39 Templar) Senia (39 Necro) <div></div>

[Lydiae]

<P>They never said all classes can solo equally, they only said they can all solo effectively.  (Of course, "effectively" is a subjective term... )</P> <P>The only valid comparison is Templar soloing, at the same level, pre LU13 vs. post LU13.  </P> <P>That said, anyone who has done so can tell you it's harder and slower - <STRONG>which most definitely should not be the case</STRONG>.  SOE specifically said that soloing would not be affected by the combat update.  I'll go find the quote if anyone doesn't remember.</P> <P>If anyone has hard numbers to back up the impression we all have then I would love to see them and they would help make the case to the developers for improving our lot in solo life.  I'n sure SOE has numbers, hopefully they're looking at them.</P>

[Andu]

To be fair to SOE, I don't think they have ever claimed each class can solo equally. What they need to do is make it so that it is at least a viable option for each class.  Sure we can solo in that it is possible to kill things of our level. Currently though, soloing with many priests is so slow and boring that most players would rather stick pins in their eyes. <div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR>To be fair to SOE, I don't think they have ever claimed each class can solo equally.<BR><BR>What they need to do is make it so that it is at least a viable option for each class.  Sure we can solo in that it is possible to kill things of our level. Currently though, soloing with many priests is so slow and boring that most players would rather stick pins in their eyes.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><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><BR>

[OlaeviaTraisharan]

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV><EM>Even without the use of my pet my Necro is so much stronger than my Templar for soloing.</EM></DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No offense hon, but I don't think anyone here picked Templar to hope to nuke like a mage class. Some classes were built to deal out more damage while others were built to deal out more health.</P> <P>The better way to do a comparison would probably be to play another Priest class similar to our own such as the Inquisitor.</P>

[Lydiae]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR>To be fair to SOE, I don't think they have ever claimed each class can solo equally.<BR><BR>What they need to do is make it so that it is at least a viable option for each class.  Sure we can solo in that it is possible to kill things of our level. Currently though, soloing with many priests is so slow and boring that most players would rather stick pins in their eyes.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><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><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What Moorgard said is fine, and nothing new.  The thing is it should not have changed such that it became harder and slower than it was.  Agreed?

[Xaax]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR>Currently though, soloing with many priests is so slow and boring that most players would rather stick pins in their eyes.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff66>LOL, So very true. Though I didnt know anyone had lower DPS and longer kill times then a Templar</FONT></DIV>

[Bhee]

<DIV>I think Necros should be killing mobs faster than a Templar. But that is just my opinion.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Howeverm when I see all priest classes (that I have seen in Qeynos), I feel that Templars are at a disadvantage. They do not have dps equal to Fury or Warden. They all heal about the same. Templars have no utility spell like invisibility or escape. Templars do get heavy armor, but as a result the avoidance goes to the bottom (which is compensated to an extent by mitigation), so they are about equal there. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I play my Templar in groups, but these days it is getting harder to find a group.</DIV>

[Lydiae]

<P>From the September Producer's Letter:</P> <P><FONT color=#ff9933>Most of the combat system changes themselves target "you vs. a yellow or harder."   You should be hearing a good many classes saying that they're noticing little difference when soloing the things they've soloed in the past, <EM><STRONG>since the majority of people weren't soloing things far past their level</STRONG></EM>.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>(Please note: Emphasis is mine.  Also, this does not contradict what Moorgard said in the quote posted by Kendrike.)</FONT></P> <P>There are some weasle words in there, (most, should, little, good many) but we can read it objectively in a general manner, covering all classes.  It says soloing anything other than yellow and above MoB's should feel the same to anyone who wasn't doing it before LU13, thus by inference soloing white or below should feel the same.  Well, they goofed with us,  it doesn't, and it should be addressed.</P>

[socrates3]

The point isn't that Necros are better than Templars at soloing, the point is that even a severly <i>handicapped </i>necro is still worlds better. Remember, a Necros main "thing" is our pets. Even if we take the main pet away, Necros still easily outsolo a Templar. Think of soloing with a Templar without using any heals. That would be the comparison. <div></div>

[Bhee]

<DIV>I agree Socrates399. I have a Conjurer alt and I can see the difference. Fighting with my templar puts me to sleep <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[OlaeviaTraisharan]

<P>Correct me if I'm wrong, but Necromancers are Mages, which means they were designed to deal out damage.</P> <P>Templars are Priests, which means we're meant to deal out healing...</P> <P>What's so hard about understanding that? You need to do a proper comparison against another Priest class, not a MAGE for crying out loud.</P>

[Nari]

<span><blockquote><hr>OlaeviaTraisharan wrote:<div></div> <p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but Necromancers are Mages, which means they were designed to deal out damage.</p> <p>Templars are Priests, which means we're meant to deal out healing...</p> <p>What's so hard about understanding that? You need to do a proper comparison against another Priest class, not a MAGE for crying out loud.</p><hr></blockquote>Whenever we do that, other priests come here and complain that we are trying to get their class nerfed.</span><div></div>

[quetzaqotl]

<P>you should make a difference between offensively geared and defensively geared healers as the sec abilities (not talking about healing) of the healers is very different.</P> <P>offense>defense in soloing in this combat system.</P>

[Simondu]

<P>I have read the pros and cons of the many threads concerning pre and post LU13 with great interest.  I also have learned some strageties to help in improving my play.  I am a casual player who enjoys soloing, grouping and an occasional raid and do recognize we all play for different reasons.  </P> <P>A couple observations:</P> <UL> <LI>It really matters not what truth is....until you can move perception to where truth is...you must deal with perception...</LI> <LI>While soloing is not impossible it is quiet difficult..</LI></UL> <P>With that said, I have a question for the Templar community..there have been many posts of parsing data, comparisions of class vs class etc...Why not bench mark against the same instance??</P> <P>I accepted a quest from the Blades Faction of Maj'Dul....The Training Arena, if you are not familiar with it or it's equivelant for the other factions, the goal is to fight ten rounds of opponents in an arena format...the mobs scale to your lvl...I was able to solo lvl three and was constantly failing lvl four....did some research, improved my stragety, improved spells and improved armor...now I can solo to lvl five successfully...on lvl six I get three mobs lvl 54, two down arrows, yellow cons...many times one is a caster...I can kill two of them by taking out the caster first, kill the second and have absolutely nothing left for the third....=/</P> <P>Has any other Templar tried this quest??  If so, how did you do??  I would be anxious to hear how high others are able to solo this instance and look as to why I can't get any higher.....It is utterly frustrating knowing I can get half way through this quest and not knowing if this is below average, average or better... and what adds to the frustration is knowing with my present abilities( strats, equip, spells, expertise ) I don't stand a chance of completing it.....=/</P> <P>Simondu, lvl 53 Templar, Legion of Legend, Befallen</P> <P>tnx...Sim :smileyhappy:</P> <P>ps..forgive spelling...spell checker didn't work....</P> <p>Message Edited by Simondu on <span class=date_text>12-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:01 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>OlaeviaTraisharan wrote:<div></div> <p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but Necromancers are Mages, which means they were designed to deal out damage.</p> <p>Templars are Priests, which means we're meant to deal out healing...</p> <p>What's so hard about understanding that? You need to do a proper comparison against another Priest class, not a MAGE for crying out loud.</p><hr></blockquote>Then why the risk of dying while fighting a solo mob is equal? A priest will die with a solo mob just as easily as a mage but can kill the mob a lot slower. Yes, the death of a priest is longer process than the death of a mage. But chances of that per mob are the same. That is why soloing speed should be equal too, since risk is but reward isn't. And this is about SOLOING. It is not about who should be what in group setting.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE>Then why the risk of dying while fighting a solo mob is equal? A priest will die with a solo mob just as easily as a mage but can kill the mob a lot slower. Yes, the death of a priest is longer process than the death of a mage. But chances of that per mob are the same. </SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I would argue that the chances of a Mage dying during a combat are far greater than the chances of a Templar dying during the same combat.  </P> <P><BR> </P>

[Caethre]

<DIV>OOC.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There are some good reasons, as already posted, why comparison of a priest archetype and a mage archetype for soloing power is not, shall we say, straightforward. Pretty much by the mechanics of the game, it is likely that the mage class character can (and should, to be honest) solo better. Now, whether it is either reasonable or good for the health of the game as a whole that they are as far superior as they actually are in practice, that is another question.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Whilst it is true that the devs certainly allowed for different classes to solo at different rates, and made no promises of balance on soloing issues alone, the statement they have made is that all classes should be able to solo if they choose, and the implication is that they can all solo more or less effectively. Effectively is very much a relative term here, not an absolute one. This means, that if the best soloing class could solo with an XP rate that was, say, 200% better (ie 3X the rate) than the worst soloing class, that might be considered too much, and therefore imbalancing for the game. On the other hand, if the best were, say, 50% faster than the worst, then that might not be considered to be imbalancing, for comparing characters in different archetypes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, it is far more valid to expect closer soloing rates within the Priest Archetype, because now, since LU13, all priest archetype classes are "primary" healers, in that they can all solo-heal a typical group to approximately the same extent. One might not expect a large disparity in soloing rates, therefore, between , say a Templar and a Fury.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In practice, the difference is staggering. Annaelisa's soloing rate makes Felishanna look like she is standing around doing nothing. I may not feel it warrants much attention, that my Templar cannot solo anything like as fast as a Wizard or Necromancer. But I do not expect or think it fair or reasonable, that her rate of soloing is so much slower than the Fury class, which is afterall another priest.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fortunately for me, I have had time to solo my Fury, which is both fun and effective. This is most certainly NOT true in either regard for my Templar.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Felishanna [53 Templar]<BR>Annaelisa [50 Fury]</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Caethre on <span class=date_text>12-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:18 PM</span>

[Kendricke]

<P>I'll agree that the term "effective" is quite relative.  Then again, my comparison is a bit different than perhaps yours is.</P> <P>I recall painful 5-8 minute "root and shoot" soloing sessions as a high level Cleric in classic Everquest to bring down a single undead target.  To be frank, it was hard to find those targets I could solo at all.  Meanwhile Bards could kite entire mobs of targets, pulling in sometimes 2 or 3 entire AAXP per hour.  </P> <P>By way of contrast, I'm able to kill most blue "solo" targets in 45 seconds or less here in the Shattered Lands.  Sure, I solo slower than other Everquest II classes, but in comparison to the old world, I'd say that I can "effectively" solo quite quite well in Everquest 2.</P>

[thomasza]

<P>**REMOVED DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT, PERSONAL ATTACKS**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>12-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:35 AM</span>

[Caethre]

<DIV>OOC.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>LOL what next?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, you are implying it is ok now that Templars solo at a far worse rate than Furies do, even though the two classes are approximately equal healers because ...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>... in EverQuest 1 Clerics were even worse? So we should be ... grateful?? Are you really implying that?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If not, what on earth relevance does that post have? For spurious logic thats the best I've seen to date.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I played a cleric in EQ1 from launch, for five years, ending as a Level 70 with ~400 AAs I think it was, I know all about how pathetic she was as a soloer. However, despite the whines from the druid class, clerics remained FAR superior healers in that game, for as long as I played, and the healer of choice for groups from 2 to 6 to raids. It was a different game, and using that as a justification for Templars being so much weaker than Furies in EQII would be ... ludicrous.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In EQII, there is no reason post-LU13 for Templars to be significantly worse soloers than any other <EM>priest</EM> class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[thomasza]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>I'll agree that the term "effective" is quite relative.  Then again, my comparison is a bit different than perhaps yours is.</P> <P>I recall painful 5-8 minute "root and shoot" soloing sessions as a high level Cleric in classic Everquest to bring down a single undead target.  To be frank, it was hard to find those targets I could solo at all.  Meanwhile Bards could kite entire mobs of targets, pulling in sometimes 2 or 3 entire AAXP per hour.  </P> <P>By way of contrast, I'm able to kill most blue "solo" targets in 45 seconds or less here in the Shattered Lands.  Sure, I solo slower than other Everquest II classes, but in comparison to the old world, I'd say that I can "effectively" solo quite quite well in Everquest 2.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>This isnt eq1 this is eq2 so stop comparing the two. You like your templar good, accept that there are people who dont think that but then again we arent as superior as you now are we...</DIV>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In EQII, there is no reason post-LU13 for Templars to be significantly worse soloers than any other <EM>priest</EM> class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>According to what?  To your own personal beliefs, yes.  I can respect that.  I can respect that you feel this is wrong.  It doesn't make it factual, which is exactly what your statement here indicates.  You're not saying you believe that there's no reason - you state that "there is no reason".  </P> <P>Yet, even so, the developers have stated that their intentions were not to create true balance across soloing.  So now your beliefs meet the developer beliefs...and their beliefs just might have a bit more standing regarding the game they created and the revamp they enacted.  </P> <P>You can believe differently and I'll respect that.  However, at the end of the day, this isn't your game or my game.  It's SOE's game...and in a worst case scenario, the most any of us can impress upon SOE is to simply stop paying to play.  We can attempt to reason, influence, or present facts which we feel are important - but at the end of the day, it's still their game that we pay to play.</P> <P>Right now, we're slower soloers than other priests.  I agree this is an issue.  I've had it listed in the "Holy Books of Templar" for weeks.  Prior to that, I had it listed as an issue in "An Attempt at Constructive Discussion".  There's no arguing the fact that we are slower than Furies in soloing.</P> <P>The argument is whether or not this is intended or not.  We can't know that it is or is not.  We can only work with the information we have at hand.  Currently, we simply don't have the data to determine for fact whether this was intended or not.   If the developers tell us one way or the other, then we'll know.  Till then, we're all just basically guessing at whether or not this is the way it's supposed to be.</P> <P>What I can say is that this is what it is right now, however.  Till such a time as a case can be raised to change the issue, we're where we are.  Now, some Templars choose to work with that...and others, such as yourself, chose to switch classes instead.  I can respect that.  In the meantime, I'm pointing out that I'm playing a grouping class I love that actually has an option of soloing - something that has not always existed for me.  You may feel that classic Everquest is a bad analogy.  That's your right.  However, in this instance, I think it's a matter of showing a differing perspective.  That perspective, to me, is that we aren't as bad as some folks make us out to be.  </P> <P> </P>

[Aleph]

<BR> <DIV>Soloing with a mage or dps class is fun, because with good strategy and a bit of luck, you can take on very difficult encounters--even nameds in some cases.  There is very little question about whether I will win a particular battle as a templar, though.  Either it is impossible because I run out of power, or it is fairly easy.  Only in very few fights on the border of possibility or after a long string of interrupts or adds will I get surprised with a defeat.  I don't think soloing would be much more fun even if I could do it at twice the rate.  Killing easy mobs quickly is no more fun to me than killing easy mobs slowly.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It will take a lot more than more dps to improve the solo EQ2 game, in my mind, because it has little depth.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Alephin   </DIV>

[Caethre]

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In EQII, there is no reason post-LU13 for Templars to be significantly worse soloers than any other <EM>priest</EM> class.<BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>According to what? <BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>According to common sense, based on knowing what "balance" means.</P> <P>For that matter, according to almost every poster on this forum.</P> <P>And, indeed, according to <STRONG>you</STRONG> as well, in some of your posts (but not in others, you switch your emphasis with the wind on this one, according to who you want to argue with on the day concerned). For an example where you do express an opinion that appears to agree with my statement, see below.</P> <P>You are correct, we cannot know what the devs think (until they tell us, I wish they would). However, I happen to believe that our feedback can influence it, because they care about this game. So again, perhaps that is why we feed it back as we do, no?<BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Right now, we're slower soloers than other priests.  I agree this is an issue.  I've had it listed in the "Holy Books of Templar" for weeks.  Prior to that, I had it listed as an issue in "An Attempt at Constructive Discussion". </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>This made me chuckle, referencing merely your own threads, which pretty much only sum up 'issues Kendricke will support', not issues of the community at large. The second of these two was locked because of the arguing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The issue of soloing weakness is one of the community's balance issues ever since LU13, as evidenced in the continued contributions to many threads on these boards from hundreds of different posters. It has been listed in the stickied thread of the community's issues :-</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>     "The Templar Class - What do we need? (actual suggestions please)."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>for over two months now. This thread which of course you know I administrate, is I suggest slightly more inline with the feelings of many Templars than .. well than any post you administrate. But I am pleased to see you finally whole-heartedly support the call for stronger soloing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Simondu]

<P>Hi again...then the statement should be:  Templars are just "too underpowered" to effectively solo against mobs in Everquest II...thus making Templars have a portion of their gaming experience less fulfilling than other classes in the same game....</P> <P> </P> <P>Simondu, lvl 53 Templar</P>

[Xaax]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <P>The argument is whether or not this is intended or not.  We can't know that it is or is not.  We can only work with the information we have at hand.  Currently, we simply don't have the data to determine for fact whether this was intended or not.   If the developers tell us one way or the other, then we'll know.  Till then, we're all just basically guessing at whether or not this is the way it's supposed to be.</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#66ff66 size=3>I disagree that we cannot know if this is intended or not, if SoE is willing to place in solo only content into the game then we know that SoE developers want all classes to solo. For SoE to place solo only content into the game that Templars have no chance to complete is either a bug or they want to drive customers away from the game. I doubt SoE wants to drive customers away. As long as there is solo only content Templars should have an equal chance as any other class to finish that content.</FONT></P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Xaax on <span class=date_text>12-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:51 AM</span>

[Lydiae]

<P>It's just as valid to compare EQ2 soloing to WoW soloing as it is to compare EQ1 to EQ2.  They are 3 different games, after all, according to the folks who made them.  Because all WoW classes solo at the same rate and can solo the same MoB's, I contend that all classes should solo equally in EQ2.  And like WoW, it should be faster exp. than grouping.  So it is written, so let it be done.  Get to work, SOE!</P> <P>Not reasonable?  Dang. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  So then it's not reasonable to compare things to EQ1 either...  After all, if they knocked us back to what clerics were in EQ1, I don't think anyone would argue that the developers were being reasonable. </P> <P>I left EQ1 for EQ2, one of the primary reasons being soloing capability.  I'm disapointed the capability we had took a few steps backwards so late in the game.  My disapointment grows a little every time I solo.  If it wasn't for the abundance of interesting quests, I doubt I would put myself through solo fighting at all. </P> <P>I thought I was being reasonable asking for what we had before the update.  I'm not convinced we need to be able to solo at the same rate as Furies, but I wouldn't argue against it.</P>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In EQII, there is no reason post-LU13 for Templars to be significantly worse soloers than any other <EM>priest</EM> class.<BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>According to what? <BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>According to common sense, based on knowing what "balance" means.</P> <P>For that matter, according to almost every poster on this forum.</P> <P>And, indeed, according to <STRONG>you</STRONG> as well, in some of your posts (but not in others, you switch your emphasis with the wind on this one, according to who you want to argue with on the day concerned). For an example where you do express an opinion that appears to agree with my statement, see below.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So again, it's according to your belief.  It's not a fact.  It's a belief.  I happen to subscribe to the same general belief, but I'm not out there posting that it's a fact that "<EM>there's no reason</EM>" for this situation. </P> <P>I think you misunderstood my question in the first place.  I'm not claiming there's no reason to believe such a thing.  I'm simply saying that none of us are able to accurately make a definitive statement on the subject.  Not you, nor I, nor anyone else.  I believe I was pretty extensive in explaining that in the original post...but you only chose that first sentence to quote, so I'm uncertain if you recognized that.</P> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <P>You are correct, we cannot know what the devs think (until they tell us, I wish they would). However, I happen to believe that our feedback can influence it, because they care about this game. So again, perhaps that is why we feed it back as we do, no?</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I believe that feedback for the sake of feedback is just tilting at windmills.  Yes, feedback helps.  Yes, feedback can work.  However, in previous posts you've outright advocated all but a popular uprising to get attention.  I would argue that's not necessarily the attention you want. </P> <P>I don't picture myself as a representative, nor do I want the job.  I'm more of an advocate.  I believe strongly that my positions are correct, and I'm willing to go the distance to make sure that my beliefs are heard correctly.  I don't claim to have supporters or to speak for anyone save myself and my guild.  Yet, somehow, my approach gets results.  For over a year now, I've been getting results. </P> <P>I wish you luck in finding out a way that gets results for you as well.  Just realize that many of those you represent (or at least those who want you to represent them) are violating forum rules to get those results; they're attacking other players; they're attacking developers; they're resorting to all manner of fallacy in order to be "heard".  What's it gotten you so far? </P> <P>Think on it.  Think on it some more.</P> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Right now, we're slower soloers than other priests.  I agree this is an issue.  I've had it listed in the "Holy Books of Templar" for weeks.  Prior to that, I had it listed as an issue in "An Attempt at Constructive Discussion". </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>This made me chuckle, referencing merely your own threads, which pretty much only sum up 'issues Kendricke will support', not issues of the community at large. The second of these two was locked because of the arguing. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Really?  Locked, eh?  Strange that if I wanted, I could go and reply to both threads right now.  Which one of those was actually locked?</P> <P>Again, I don't claim to represent the community-at-large.  Do you?  I'm an advocate...an activist.  I'm not a representative of any other faction save for myself and my guild.  If you want to play represenative, you go right ahead.  :smileywink:</P> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The issue of soloing weakness is one of the community's balance issues ever since LU13, as evidenced in the continued contributions to many threads on these boards from hundreds of different posters. It has been listed in the stickied thread of the community's issues :-</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>     "The Templar Class - What do we need? (actual suggestions please)."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>for over two months now. This thread which of course you know I administrate, is I suggest slightly more inline with the feelings of many Templars than .. well than any post you administrate. But I am pleased to see you finally whole-heartedly support the call for stronger soloing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ah, so I see...it's a Tale of Two Threads now, eh?  I'm not in competition with you.  So long as someone uses either post for bringing up vital information, we all win.  I dont' see why you feel a need to compete against me on this. </P> <P>As far as "finally" supporting the call for stronger soloing:</P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=12735&query.id=0#M12735" target=_blank>Data Collection Point: Templar Soloing and Light Grouping</A>   -posted by Kendricke, October 19, 2005</P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=11181#M11181" target=_blank>An Attempt at Constructive Discussion: What are the problems? What are the suggestions? </A> - posted by Kendricke, September 26, 2005</P> <P>I could post more links, but I think the point here is clear.  I admitted that at least some Templars feel there is an issue, even if I myself did not fully see the problems others claimed.  I've brought up the issue time and again.  I'm not "finally" getting around the supporting the call for stronger healing...I've been there for months, regardless of my personal experiences.</P> <P>Seriously, stop the needless fued.  There's no need for it.  It's not working.  I'm not upset by it, it didn't result in me getting banned or removed from Caster's Realm, and frankly, I'm just tired of having to post clarifications or corrections all the time. </P> <P>Ignore me.  You've mentioned more than once that you wish you could.  Well, now I wish you could.  I'm just another player.  I don't even claim to speak for anyone else.  So why spend so much time and effort on me, right? </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Xaax wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <P>The argument is whether or not this is intended or not.  We can't know that it is or is not.  We can only work with the information we have at hand.  Currently, we simply don't have the data to determine for fact whether this was intended or not.   If the developers tell us one way or the other, then we'll know.  Till then, we're all just basically guessing at whether or not this is the way it's supposed to be.</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#66ff66 size=3>I disagree that we cannot know if this is intended or not, if SoE is willing to place in solo only content into the game then we know that SoE developers want all classes to solo. For SoE to place solo only content into the game that Templars have no chance to complete is either a bug or they want to drive customers away from the game. I doubt SoE wants to drive customers away. As long as there is solo only content Templars should have an equal chance as any other class to finish that content.</FONT><BR></P></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Firstly, SOE's stated clearly that all classes can solo...but that not all classes are balanced to solo equally well. </P> <P>Secondly, what specific solo content are you unable to finish?</P> <P><BR> </P>

[Simondu]

<DIV>I am unable to complete the "Training Arena" quest given in the Court of Blades.. a level 52 quest for faction...(see earlier post in this thread)....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I would like to know the reasons....is it my ability to play a templar, my armor is not good enough, my spells are not high enough, I am employing the wrong stragety, should a level 53 Templar be able to complete all ten rounds???  If I could learn "why" then I could seek to improve that which prevents me completing the quest if it is indeed doable..??</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This quest is pure Templar...doesn't compare me to other classes...I'm only looking for feedback on other Templars abilities to do the same quest, so I will know what I need to improve....if we can't help each other, what's the use of this Forum anyway...??</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Simondu, lvl 53 Templar</DIV>

[OlaeviaTraisharan]

<DIV>Well I can't do the splitpaw champion quest at all... forget it lol. That one is impossible!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Even on quests that have gone grey to me I have to ask people to come help me kill the grey ^^^ mobs at the end of the quest.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think the problem I run into the most is that I cannot deal enough damage with a full bar of mana to kill a lot of the stuff after level 45 or so. It just doesn't happen. The Templar nukes deal little damage for a lot of mana.</DIV>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> OlaeviaTraisharan wrote:<BR> <DIV>Well I can't do the splitpaw champion quest at all... forget it lol. That one is impossible!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If you are talking about the arena champion, I failed that quest the first time because the champ surprised me with heals at the end.  After that, I just started meleeing him and healing myself until he ran out of power.  Then I nuked him down.  It was without question the most boring thing I've ever done in this game other than camping Foulgill. </P> <P>Alephin<BR></P>

[Gcha]

<DIV>You can also nail him by simply healing and killing him with DS potions and mana-free wand casts.</DIV>

[Caethre]

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>I think you misunderstood my question in the first place.  I'm not claiming there's no reason to believe such a thing.  I'm simply saying that none of us are able to accurately make a definitive statement on the subject.  Not you, nor I, nor anyone else.  I believe I was pretty extensive in explaining that in the original post...but you only chose that first sentence to quote, so I'm uncertain if you recognized that.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Ahh so its just semantics again... sigh, I thought there was something concrete there for a moment.</FONT></P> <P>However, in previous posts you've outright advocated all but a popular uprising to get attention.  I would argue that's not necessarily the attention you want. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Overly melodramatic as a description, but the underlying essence is correct, I do actually believe that when an overwhelmingly large number of players are sufficiently (and genuinely) upset over an issue, communicating it in both numbers and strength of feeling can and indeed has been known on other occasions to be effective. That only works, however, because SoE care about their game (not everyone believes this, but I do), and because they can see when someone else does. Contrary to some opinions, the SoE developers are not daft, they can see what is and is not fair, and what is and is not popular, and will bear both in mind. They will still do, of course, what they see as best, and that is only right.</FONT></P> <P>I don't picture myself as a representative, nor do I want the job.  I'm more of an advocate.  I believe strongly that my positions are correct, and I'm willing to go the distance to make sure that my beliefs are heard correctly.  I don't claim to have supporters or to speak for anyone save myself and my guild.  Yet, somehow, my approach gets results.  For over a year now, I've been getting results. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>You make so many grand claims for yourself, but I see no results that are important to me that *you* achieved. I do see a great deal of hot air, very little substance, and no passion for our class, just defence of the status quo all the time.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Your few good points are lost in the background of thousands of posts merely demeaning other posters. That you do not do it via vulgar language keeps your posts largely unmoderated, but the lack of constructivity in many of your threads shines through. You seem to have a perpetual war going with five, six, seven .. how many here? The common element to all those arguments appears to be yourself. Is that helping anyone?</FONT></P> <P>I wish you luck in finding out a way that gets results for you as well.  Just realize that many of those you represent (or at least those who want you to represent them) are violating forum rules to get those results; they're attacking other players; they're attacking developers; they're resorting to all manner of fallacy in order to be "heard".  What's it gotten you so far? </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>How each person posts is up to them. However, it is not exactly realistic for you to describe other posters as attacking other players and using fallacy. These are tactics I've seen in your arsenal on a regular basis, the only thing I notice more in your posts is the hiding of meaning behind semantics.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I personally will never slander SoE staff, not because I feel it would be counterproductive (though it would be extremely so), but because frankly I think they have made a wonderful couple of games that I absolutely love, and I am more than aware they do not get enough credit for the fantastic job they do. I will stress here, there was no sarcasm in that remark, I meant it faithfully. However, on the other hand, I do not see any point in being fawning toward them when an error has been made, as you so often seem to be. If the error is so serious that it ruins the fun in the gaming of a significant number of players, then that message has to be fed back, often, and loudly, to make sure it gets through with the required passion.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I do however feel that some amount of coordination is needed, and it is something some other classes have and we do not seem to achieve it. Part of the reason for that is we have a fifth column in here, fighting our own. But as for "what's it gotten" .. who can say? I have no crystal ball. Time will tell. Maybe a lot, maybe nothing. At the very least, the communication to SoE is something I think is useful, whatever they choose to do.</FONT></P> <P>Really?  Locked, eh?  Strange that if I wanted, I could go and reply to both threads right now.  Which one of those was actually locked?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I thought the second thread was locked. If not, I have confused it with another. So many of the threads you pay a lot of visits too become flamefests. Perhaps this is something for you to think on?</FONT></P> <P><BR>Ah, so I see...it's a Tale of Two Threads now, eh?  I'm not in competition with you.  So long as someone uses either post for bringing up vital information, we all win.  I dont' see why you feel a need to compete against me on this. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>It is not a matter of "competing", it is a matter of representing the situation properly, something I do not feel you do. I have one agenda, to get our class fixed and made fun to play again for all Templars. Your agenda is more clouded, that is the polite way to put it.</FONT></P> <P>Seriously, stop the needless fued. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>This is your doing. You can only describe points and observations on our class, based on many thousands of hours of online play, by many experienced and skilled players, as "hyperbole", "exaggeration" and other such demeaning terms, so many times, before you become part of the problem. Many of us here clearly feel you are a loose cannon, as you post so many thousands of times, largely against those of us who passionately believe our class is badly lacking, that you are setting yourself up as a martyr for your personal cause. And each time you "boast" about how you have achieved "results", etc, you only make it worse. You advise me to think on it, I suggest you do the same.</FONT></P> <P>... it didn't result in me getting banned or removed from Caster's Realm, and frankly, I'm just tired of having to post clarifications or corrections all the time. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about regarding Caster's Realm. I don't believe I have ever posted on their forums, indeed, it has been many years since I even visited their site to read it, back in EQ1 days.</FONT></P> <P>Ignore me.  You've mentioned more than once that you wish you could.  Well, now I wish you could.  I'm just another player.  I don't even claim to speak for anyone else.  So why spend so much time and effort on me, right? </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Unfortunately, someone like you cannot be ignored. When you post what I believe to be damaging and untrue statements, which you do almost daily, those statements have to be debunked. Why? Because I care about my class, and I want it fixed, and I believe on some occasions you seem to have precisely the opposite agenda.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>In short, SoE addressing the issues of our class - the real class balance issues, not the trivial bug fixes - matters to many of us, dare I say it, to most of us. Whilst I still believe SoE are listening and considering, all relevant facts and observations need to be presented. Pointing out where one of our "own" is fighting against the rest of us and is out of sync with the community and with any seeming knowledge of the reality of daily play for the rest of us, is a vital part of that feedback.</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>I'll agree that the term "effective" is quite relative.  Then again, my comparison is a bit different than perhaps yours is.</p> <p>I recall painful 5-8 minute "root and shoot" soloing sessions as a high level Cleric in classic Everquest to bring down a single undead target.  To be frank, it was hard to find those targets I could solo at all.  Meanwhile Bards could kite entire mobs of targets, pulling in sometimes 2 or 3 entire AAXP per hour.  </p> <p>By way of contrast, I'm able to kill most blue "solo" targets in 45 seconds or less here in the Shattered Lands.  Sure, I solo slower than other Everquest II classes, but in comparison to the old world, I'd say that I can "effectively" solo quite quite well in Everquest 2.</p><hr></blockquote>Tell me if I am wrong, but aren't you one of those who say 'THIS IS NOT EQ1'? And use that as a reason why templars aren't by far the best healers? And yet you compare us to EQ1 clerics. THIS IS NOT EQ1!! So the clerics there cannot be compared to templars. So quit your stupid exmaples, they have no place in this game.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <p>Firstly, SOE's stated clearly that all classes can solo...but that not all classes are balanced to solo equally well. </p> <p>Secondly, what specific solo content are you unable to finish?</p><div></div><hr></blockquote>EQ1 clerics could solo if they picked a low enough level mob. What is your point?</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<DIV>I don't think my examples are "stupid", but I recognize that you might.  That's your right to feel thusly. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You're also correct that this is not Everquest classic, and certainly I'm not claiming we should be as we were.  If anything, I'm pointing out how I feel things are different now, but in a positive light. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As a guildmaster, I'm also thrilled with the fact that I now have access to guild levels, guild mail, and the ability to create and manage guild ranks - something else I could not do in Everquest.  As a raid officer, I'm thrilled that raids are based around smaller forces now, and not merely whomever can pack 50-70 people into a raid window - something I was unable to experience in Everquest.  As a Templar, I'm thrilled with the fact that I now have access to combat that isn't a test of patience to participate in - something I was unable to experience in Everquest.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At the same time, I've noted other things I'd like to see brought from Everquest, such as summoned hammers, yaulp, holy auras, and religious items. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There's a great deal to learn from Everquest, both positive and not.  If we do not at least attempt to glean what we can from the past, we're doomed to repeat the mistakes made then.  Wouldn't you agree?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div> <div>I don't think my examples are "stupid", but I recognize that you might.  That's your right to feel thusly. </div> <hr></blockquote>Well, you are comparing two totally different games, how intelligent you think it is?</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <DIV>I don't think my examples are "stupid", but I recognize that you might.  That's your right to feel thusly.<BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Well, you are comparing two totally different games, how intelligent you think it is?<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I'm not comparing the games per se.  I'm pointing out personal experiences from gameplay I've personally experienced.  I could use other games, but none seemed to illustrate the points I was raising quite so well as classic Everquest. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm fully cognizant of the fact that Everquest and Everquest II are separate games.  However, there were some good aspects and bad aspects of Everquest that we can either ignore, or learn from.  Personally, I'd prefer that we learn what we can.  You may feel differently.  That's your right.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote>Kendricke wrote: <div>I'm not comparing the games per se.  I'm pointing out personal experiences from gameplay I've personally experienced.  I could use other games, but none seemed to illustrate the points I was raising quite so well as classic Everquest. </div> <div> </div> <div>I'm fully cognizant of the fact that Everquest and Everquest II are separate games.  However, there were some good aspects and bad aspects of Everquest that we can either ignore, or learn from.  Personally, I'd prefer that we learn what we can.  You may feel differently.  That's your right.</div> <hr></blockquote>Ah, well in Neverwinter Nights, I could play the game just as 'fast' with a cleric than with a mage. So what is your point? To me it looks like you want the bad stuff from each game. You want templars to be bad healers and bad soloers. You defend the balance in healing because this is EQ2 and not EQ1 and then you defend our low DPS by claiming 'EQ1 cleric couldn't even solo'. I call your double standard attitude BS.</span><div></div>

[Andu]

<div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Caethre wrote:<div></div> <div>Whilst it is true that the devs certainly allowed for different classes to solo at different rates, and made no promises of balance on soloing issues alone, the statement they have made is that all classes should be able to solo if they choose, and the implication is that they can all solo more or less effectively. Effectively is very much a relative term here, not an absolute one. This means, that if the best soloing class could solo with an XP rate that was, say, 200% better (ie 3X the rate) than the worst soloing class, that might be considered too much, and therefore imbalancing for the game. On the other hand, if the best were, say, 50% faster than the worst, then that might not be considered to be imbalancing, for comparing characters in different archetypes.</div><div> </div><div>However, it is far more valid to expect closer soloing rates within the Priest Archetype, because now, since LU13, all priest archetype classes are "primary" healers, in that they can all solo-heal a typical group to approximately the same extent. One might not expect a large disparity in soloing rates, therefore, between , say a Templar and a Fury.</div><div> </div><div>In practice, the difference is staggering. Annaelisa's soloing rate makes Felishanna look like she is standing around doing nothing. I may not feel it warrants much attention, that my Templar cannot solo anything like as fast as a Wizard or Necromancer. But I do not expect or think it fair or reasonable, that her rate of soloing is so much slower than the Fury class, which is afterall another priest.<hr></div><div> </div>I agree with everything Caethre has written here. It is so obvious that I cannot understand why people would argue against it.I'd also just like to say that:a) Caethre, you have the patience of a saint to keep your posts clean when refering to Lord Kennie and I agree with everything you said.b) This is yet another thread that has descended into flamefest and personal attacks, due to Mr. K. I for one am getting tired of our class board being turned into a battleground, seemingly at the whim of one poster.</blockquote></span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Anduri on <span class=date_text>12-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:29 PM</span>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>I call your double standard attitude BS.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Such language is certainly unnecessary with me. </P> <P>That said, you're ascribing to me a position I've not taken.  There are good and bad aspects to Everquest 2.  Sometimes I'll pick an aspect I did not like to point out where I feel we should do things differently here and other times I'll pick an aspect I did like to point out how I feel it could be better.  I've done the same with aspects of other games - whether I've enjoyed or disliked them.</P> <DIV>Again, I fully recognize that Everquest is not Everquest II, and I generally agree that we should not compare the games wholepiece to one another.  Even so, I still find it personally short sighted to ignore the fact that the game existed. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No, Templars are not Clerics.  No, Everquest is not Everquest II.  Yes, I like the fact that even the worst soloing classes in Everquest II can actually solo a target in less than a minute whereas in classic Everquest, such a feat was not necessarily true.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I could make the same point without comparing Everquest to Everquest II.  If that is the issue you're having with my argument, I can simply reword the point and it's just as true, without any references to Everquest:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV>After playing for years where I was relegated only to grouping roles in previous games, I was excited to find that I could solo on occasion here.  I may not be the best at soloing, but the fact that I can solo at all is a positive boon in my eyes.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[RipFlex]

<P>Well since my 58th level Templar my main and all Heritage Quests done for my Guild all I have are Writs basically to keep adding to the Guild XP.  Well I grab 2 writs for Everfrost and it takes me 30 - 45 minutes to complete them (Wolfies & Pioneers); while a Guildy Wizard can almost do 3 trips of 2 writs each in that time, that's 6 Writs.....   <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>So, now I just grab same Writs, I let her use my Terraporter in my room (GM event item) to port to TS and Odyssey one of us back as the other Calls back, to pick up more writs.  My DPS is so pathetic that my Templar just sets himself on AF and let here AE fire the mobs to death... I just watch her kill a half dozen or more solo things that would take me 50 seconds average to kill 1 .</P> <P>Now Booky quest post Combat Changes.... *twitches violently*</P> <P>THANX SONY !!</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Message Edited by RipFlex on <SPAN class=date_text>12-07-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:20 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by RipFlex on <span class=date_text>12-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:20 PM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:<span>I call your double standard attitude BS.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Such language is certainly unnecessary with me. </p> <hr></blockquote>That is your opinion. Mine is onec again based on reality and what at least doesn't work. You don't accept facts, you dont have any opinions of your own, you state devs statements as some sort of higher word and if reality contradicts them, you think our perception of reality if false. No, you really deserve such language.</span><div></div>

[thomasza]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>I think you misunderstood my question in the first place.  I'm not claiming there's no reason to believe such a thing.  I'm simply saying that none of us are able to accurately make a definitive statement on the subject.  Not you, nor I, nor anyone else.  I believe I was pretty extensive in explaining that in the original post...but you only chose that first sentence to quote, so I'm uncertain if you recognized that.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Ahh so its just semantics again... sigh, I thought there was something concrete there for a moment.</FONT></P> <P>However, in previous posts you've outright advocated all but a popular uprising to get attention.  I would argue that's not necessarily the attention you want. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Overly melodramatic as a description, but the underlying essence is correct, I do actually believe that when an overwhelmingly large number of players are sufficiently (and genuinely) upset over an issue, communicating it in both numbers and strength of feeling can and indeed has been known on other occasions to be effective. That only works, however, because SoE care about their game (not everyone believes this, but I do), and because they can see when someone else does. Contrary to some opinions, the SoE developers are not daft, they can see what is and is not fair, and what is and is not popular, and will bear both in mind. They will still do, of course, what they see as best, and that is only right.</FONT></P> <P>I don't picture myself as a representative, nor do I want the job.  I'm more of an advocate.  I believe strongly that my positions are correct, and I'm willing to go the distance to make sure that my beliefs are heard correctly.  I don't claim to have supporters or to speak for anyone save myself and my guild.  Yet, somehow, my approach gets results.  For over a year now, I've been getting results. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>You make so many grand claims for yourself, but I see no results that are important to me that *you* achieved. I do see a great deal of hot air, very little substance, and no passion for our class, just defence of the status quo all the time.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Your few good points are lost in the background of thousands of posts merely demeaning other posters. That you do not do it via vulgar language keeps your posts largely unmoderated, but the lack of constructivity in many of your threads shines through. You seem to have a perpetual war going with five, six, seven .. how many here? The common element to all those arguments appears to be yourself. Is that helping anyone?</FONT></P> <P>I wish you luck in finding out a way that gets results for you as well.  Just realize that many of those you represent (or at least those who want you to represent them) are violating forum rules to get those results; they're attacking other players; they're attacking developers; they're resorting to all manner of fallacy in order to be "heard".  What's it gotten you so far? </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>How each person posts is up to them. However, it is not exactly realistic for you to describe other posters as attacking other players and using fallacy. These are tactics I've seen in your arsenal on a regular basis, the only thing I notice more in your posts is the hiding of meaning behind semantics.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I personally will never slander SoE staff, not because I feel it would be counterproductive (though it would be extremely so), but because frankly I think they have made a wonderful couple of games that I absolutely love, and I am more than aware they do not get enough credit for the fantastic job they do. I will stress here, there was no sarcasm in that remark, I meant it faithfully. However, on the other hand, I do not see any point in being fawning toward them when an error has been made, as you so often seem to be. If the error is so serious that it ruins the fun in the gaming of a significant number of players, then that message has to be fed back, often, and loudly, to make sure it gets through with the required passion.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I do however feel that some amount of coordination is needed, and it is something some other classes have and we do not seem to achieve it. Part of the reason for that is we have a fifth column in here, fighting our own. But as for "what's it gotten" .. who can say? I have no crystal ball. Time will tell. Maybe a lot, maybe nothing. At the very least, the communication to SoE is something I think is useful, whatever they choose to do.</FONT></P> <P>Really?  Locked, eh?  Strange that if I wanted, I could go and reply to both threads right now.  Which one of those was actually locked?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I thought the second thread was locked. If not, I have confused it with another. So many of the threads you pay a lot of visits too become flamefests. Perhaps this is something for you to think on?</FONT></P> <P><BR>Ah, so I see...it's a Tale of Two Threads now, eh?  I'm not in competition with you.  So long as someone uses either post for bringing up vital information, we all win.  I dont' see why you feel a need to compete against me on this. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>It is not a matter of "competing", it is a matter of representing the situation properly, something I do not feel you do. I have one agenda, to get our class fixed and made fun to play again for all Templars. Your agenda is more clouded, that is the polite way to put it.</FONT></P> <P>Seriously, stop the needless fued. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>This is your doing. You can only describe points and observations on our class, based on many thousands of hours of online play, by many experienced and skilled players, as "hyperbole", "exaggeration" and other such demeaning terms, so many times, before you become part of the problem. Many of us here clearly feel you are a loose cannon, as you post so many thousands of times, largely against those of us who passionately believe our class is badly lacking, that you are setting yourself up as a martyr for your personal cause. And each time you "boast" about how you have achieved "results", etc, you only make it worse. You advise me to think on it, I suggest you do the same.</FONT></P> <P>... it didn't result in me getting banned or removed from Caster's Realm, and frankly, I'm just tired of having to post clarifications or corrections all the time. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about regarding Caster's Realm. I don't believe I have ever posted on their forums, indeed, it has been many years since I even visited their site to read it, back in EQ1 days.</FONT></P> <P>Ignore me.  You've mentioned more than once that you wish you could.  Well, now I wish you could.  I'm just another player.  I don't even claim to speak for anyone else.  So why spend so much time and effort on me, right? </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Unfortunately, someone like you cannot be ignored. When you post what I believe to be damaging and untrue statements, which you do almost daily, those statements have to be debunked. Why? Because I care about my class, and I want it fixed, and I believe on some occasions you seem to have precisely the opposite agenda.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>In short, SoE addressing the issues of our class - the real class balance issues, not the trivial bug fixes - matters to many of us, dare I say it, to most of us. Whilst I still believe SoE are listening and considering, all relevant facts and observations need to be presented. Pointing out where one of our "own" is fighting against the rest of us and is out of sync with the community and with any seeming knowledge of the reality of daily play for the rest of us, is a vital part of that feedback.</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you Caethre for voicing the opininion from many templars who dont dare to speak off against Kendricke and friends. Now i only hope SoE takes notions of the problems the templar class has and dont stick to the enormous amount of feedback one guy and his friends bombard them with. All templars should have a saying in their class but i am afraid one guy will make that almost impossible.<BR>

[Andu]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> thomasza wrote:<BR><BR>Thank you Caethre for voicing the opininion from many templars who dont dare to speak off against Kendricke and friends. Now i only hope SoE takes notions of the problems the templar class has and dont stick to the enormous amount of feedback one guy and his friends bombard them with. All templars should have a saying in their class but i am afraid one guy will make that almost impossible.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Well please don't be afraid to speak up. We can't all post at the rate Kendricke does, very few can, which allows his views a far greater voice than one person should have.</DIV>

[RipFlex]

<DIV>Strange, my Templar fine in all aspects but I'm asking the scaling of the DPS be better for small groups (DUO/3 players) and solo be more toleratable?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why such constructive but opposing replies on this?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Many people like myself Have a Healer as their main character, some even have no other character.  Pre-Combat changes I was able to Solo Book quests, and run off writs for my guild.  As for grouping, My Nuke HOs were really effective against heroic UNDEAD, and my healing HO was asked for.  Now I just be told to S.T.F.U. and Heal in even small trivial groups and the groups getting  mad (or laughing at me) if waste any time or effort HO smiting undead or trying to use the Healing HO and gods forbid helping with DPS in a trivial low-DPS group.  Well maybe these things other than healing for Soloing, right?  Well it's just as useless my friends, unless it's a very greem Heroic or a weak Solo mob, it's usually not worth the effort.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So I figured if all priests now (as Sony claims) heal for about the same amount in a different approach.  Maybe now look into toleratable DPS scaled a bit better than giving it all to the Fury, even the Warrior sub-classes having the same problem if you look in their Class section (Guard/Berzer).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by RipFlex on <span class=date_text>12-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:23 PM</span>