Templar vs Fury Parsing Data

[Caethre]

<DIV>OOC.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok, tonight Fury Annaelisa achieved level 53 and caught up Templar Felishanna. So, I decided it was time to look for a parser on the web, install it, fiddle about with it until I could make it look like it was working, and start doing comparisons. I used EQCompanion, as it was the only one I could find - all links to Statalyzer and Combatstats I could find were dead links, but this one works so it's fine.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, a rider before I start. I am a total parser newbie. If I have made errors in its use, I apologise and will correct them if told about them and re-run affected tests as and when I have time. That said, it doesn't look very complicated, and it all looks to be working.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Please keep this thread positive. I will use it to report data to the community. What you do with it is up to you, of course.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have started tonight by choosing just one mob type to compare them on, but it is just the first of many, or I plan it to be anyway. I wanted to choose a soloable mob that would be the biggest advantage to the Templar on normal mobs (meaning, not undead). So, I selected one where the fights will be longer, where the mitigation would matter more, and healing might come into play a little, but something that genuinely comes up solo, as these mobs are needed by one of the Court of Truth quests for Maj`Dul. I also chose an encounter with only a single mob.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The mob I selected was the Coastal Caller, a Level 45^^^ on Hullcrusher Rock in the Sinking Sands. These are green con heroics to both of my characters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In the days and weeks to come, I hope to choose a range of other mobs, solo encounters on lower blues, on blue/whites, on yellows, and on 2-mob encounters, and on 3+ mob encounters - basically, the whole spectrum of normally soloable and soloed (for quests) mobs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>I have posted the basic character details and the detailed table of results on my own guild (ezboard) board (see link in my sig), under the forum "The Path of the Adventurer", if you wished to read the details. The summary is as follows :-</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Each character killed five of the mobs, and the results were averaged. In both cases, the spread was quite tight, suggesting that it would not vary a great deal even if a larger number of mobs were killed, so these seem to be the correct sorts of values.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>==================================================</DIV> <DIV>Annaelisa - </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fight durations are 60-64 seconds (average 62s)</DIV> <DIV>at 235-252 DPS (average 244 DPS).</DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV> <DIV>Felishanna -</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fight durations are 121-127 seconds (average 125s)</DIV> <DIV>at 119-128 DPS (average 124 DPS).<BR> <DIV>==================================================</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, my analysis.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Annaelisa performed as I expected. She had to expend some power healing herself, but not a great deal. She killed them in one minute pretty efficiently. She typically had about 40-50% power left when they died.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Felishanna though surprised me. She did rather better than I had expected, I will be honest. I was using her AE nuke as well as the others, to get her to kill more quickly, and this cost her in power, and she typically ended each fight on more like 30-40% power. Nevertheless, her DPS, whilst still only half that of Anna's, was better than I had been lead to believe she could achieve.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It will be interesting to see how they compare on "easier" (ie non-heroic) mobs, and especially on multi-mob encounters. However, even in this case, Anna is going to be getting XP at twice the rate Felishanna can.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>More to come (at least, I plan there to be).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Felishanna [53 Templar]<BR>Annaelisa [53 Fury]<BR></DIV> <DIV>Addendum - added colour to paragraph referencing where more details are given.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Caethre on <span class=date_text>12-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:24 PM</span>

[Aleph]

<P>Will you provide a little extra data to help us out?  Which master 2s did you pick?  Heals for both characters, or did the fury get master 2 nukes?</P> <P>Alephin</P>

[Caethre]

<P>OOC.</P> <P>Yes, I posted all those kinds of comparative details (spells, gear, etc) on the longer post on my guild forum. I've editted the first post to emphasize that in colour.</P> <P>Felishanna.</P>

[OlaeviaTraisharan]

<DIV>Is there a reason we're parsing against ^^^ heroics? Aren't those intended for groups to take on, and not soloers? They've got a *lot* of hitpoints <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When I heard people griping on the boards about fights taking 2-3 minutes I was very confused, but I think now I can put two and two together and see that the griping is against ^^^ mobs correct?</DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>OlaeviaTraisharan wrote:<div>Is there a reason we're parsing against ^^^ heroics? Aren't those intended for groups to take on, and not soloers? They've got a *lot* of hitpoints <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div> <div> </div> <div>When I heard people griping on the boards about fights taking 2-3 minutes I was very confused, but I think now I can put two and two together and see that the griping is against ^^^ mobs correct?</div><hr></blockquote>What does it matter what to parse with? With non-heroic solo mobs, templar dps will stay exactly the same, but furys will increase up to 100% due to spike dps. A templar can only make steady dps, a fury can make massive dps spikes and if it is a kill with the spike, the dps will look accordingly. An example with a monk, in a 15s fight, I'll get 80% higher dps than in a one minute fight. Why? Because in a 15s fight I'll just go through all my CA's and their recast (30 for 90% of the arts) runs after combat is over. In a one minute fight, I need to wait for all my recasts twice. This means I wont be using them for a fair bit of the fight. Same goes for furies, if they kill the target with the opiginal burst, they have huge dps, but if they need to wait for recasts, they will do that 200+dps. Templars nukes are so small that if you are not fighting greys, you will have to wait for recasts. This means that you will wait for them several times in every fight and it also means you wont be making any kind of dps spikes. Also if you count the time it takes to fight 10 of these solo mobs, a fury will spend a lot less time fighting than the templar. Since a fury can kill ^^^ twice as fast, they will kill a down arrowed mob 3 to 5 times as fast depending if tehy are group or a single target. But their downtime after the fight is pretty close to what a templars downtime is. So griping against solo mobs is even bigger than against ^^^ mobs.</span><div></div>

[Nari]

I <b>wish</b> it only took me 2-3 minutes to take out a ^^^. <div></div>

[Caethre]

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> OlaeviaTraisharan wrote:<BR> <DIV>Is there a reason we're parsing against ^^^ heroics? Aren't those intended for groups to take on, and not soloers? They've got a *lot* of hitpoints <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Indeed there is. Once Anna reached 53, I just decided to parse the very next thing I would be killing for quests. Anna was working on the quest "Court of Truth: In the Name of Love", "solo" quest in the Court of Truth, Maj`Dul sequence. Amongst other things, she needed nine locks of siren hair from these creatures. They are easily soloable for her, so off she went. Now, having done that, I thought, hmm, best log on Felishanna and do them with her too. Admittedly, when Felishanna did them herself for the quest a couple of months back, she got some help from a Guardian friend, as she was just 51 at the time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In general, I will choose mobs that I actually have to solo for quests, because, frankly, that is the most realistic thing I can do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[OlaeviaTraisharan]

<DIV>Oh ok makes sense then.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I haven't gotten too far with the coin quests. I usually have to have my husband's level 48 necro come help me kill stuff, because he does a better job at it than me <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> (which I would expect from a mage class anyway).</DIV>

[Caethre]

<P>OOC.</P> <P>Ok, I have finished the second comparison. This one is less "scientific" than the last, and is thrown in because I wanted to do some harvesting in Sinking Sands this evening. So, I thought, hey, why not send each character, and fight the Rujarkian Orcs I meet whilst harvesting, whatever is (a) in my way (b) trained on me or (c) adds on me whilst fighting or harvesting. Yes, that makes it more rough-and-ready, as the mob selections might not be the same for both characters, but it is a *realistic* if random circumstance that is a significant part of many player's gaming.</P> <P>The fine details are once again on my guild board (with two tables that print out absolutely terribly on ezboard, I'm afraid, but the data is all there). Both characters kept harvesting until they had fought twenty encounters, then I summed and averaged using EQCompanion's built in function, and the tables are in the details. The headline results however are :-</P> <P>Annaelisa (Fury)<BR>- 278 DPS</P> <P>Felishanna (Templar)<BR>- 113 DPS</P> <P>Sigh, it felt like that too. Felishanna did manage to soothe a couple of adds before they became adds, to avoid fighting them, but she also had more adds overall however because all the fights took so long.</P> <P>On the up side, both characters found 1 Vanadium Cluster whilst performing this test.</P> <P>The next test I will also do this evening, and it will be a more scientific one, something in Pillars of Flame (I'll decide when Felishanna gets there).</P> <P> </P>

[Sleet_Levanter]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <DIV>OOC.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok, tonight Fury Annaelisa achieved level 53 and caught up Templar Felishanna. So, I decided it was time to look for a parser on the web, install it, fiddle about with it until I could make it look like it was working, and start doing comparisons. I used EQCompanion, as it was the only one I could find - all links to Statalyzer and Combatstats I could find were dead links, but this one works so it's fine.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I was able to locate a link to an older version of CombatStats from a thread in the Chit Chat forum of EQ2Interface.  The thread is here, <A href="http://www.eq2interface.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1972" target=_blank>http://www.eq2interface.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1972</A></P> <P>I downloaded it when I found it, but I am still using the installation of CombatStats I already had so cannot say if it works or not.</P> <P> </P> <P>Anyhow, there it is if you still want to try to use CombatStats.</P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P>

[Caethre]

<P>OOC.</P> <P>Once Felishanna arrived in the Pillars of Flame, she spoke to Sgt. Tuskin and picked up the quest "Scouting and Stingers", so that chose for her the third target - Searing Scorpions. These are all group mobs, with each group being either three scorpions (all double-down-arrow) or two scorpions (where one is single-down, the other is double-down). All groups are either level 53 (white con) or level 52 (blue con). I killed 10 groups of scorpions (5 of them of three scorpions each, the other 5 of two each), and averaged the results over all ten encounters.</P> <P>The results were as follows :-</P> <P>======================================<BR>Felishanna (53 Templar)<BR>- average of 131 DPS (in the range 120-165)<BR>- fight duration in the range 46-71 seconds.</P> <P>Annaelisa (53 Fury)<BR>- average of 322 DPS (in the range 237-411)<BR>- fight duration in the range 20-30 seconds.<BR>======================================</P> <P>In this case, Annaelisa made poor Felishanna look like she was standing doing nothing. The fact that these are group mobs of course amplifies the issue here.</P>

[Caethre]

<DIV> <P>OOC.</P> <P>Now for comparison number 4.</P> <P>Since I was there anyway, in Pillars of Flame, in the Searing Gorge, I thought I'd try out the Sunfeather Falcons too. Now, these are solo mobs, level 50-51 (blue con, no arrows up or down), and so this means none of the AE advantage for the Fury given by the scorpions. Furthermore, these mobs have a nasty stun attack that is hard to resist, which will lengthen fights, and therefore might be predicted to have a larger (numerical) effect on Fury DPS than Templar DPS.</P> <P>I killed 8 of these with each character, 4 of level 50 and 4 of level 51 (not that I noticed any difference between them), and averaged the results in the usual way.</P> <P>The results were as follows :-</P> <P>======================================<BR>Felishanna (53 Templar)<BR>- average of 103 DPS (in the range 87-120)<BR>- fight duration in the range 47-62 seconds.</P> <P>Annaelisa (53 Fury)<BR>- average of 204 DPS (in the range 164-302)<BR>- fight duration in the range 20-34 seconds.<BR>======================================</P> <P>Even with the stuns, when they landed, hurting Anna's DPS somewhat, she still left Felishanna far far behind, killing in half the time, with double the DPS.</P></DIV>

[Caethre]

<P>OOC.</P> <P>Well, that's 4 comparisons done.</P> <P>Green Heroics: Felishanna 124 DPS Annaelisa 244 DPS<BR>Blue-con Orcs: Felishanna 113 DPS Annaelisa 278 DPS<BR>Even Scorpions: Felishanna 131 DPS Annaelisa 322 DPS<BR>Blue Falcons: Felishanna 103 DPS Annaelisa 204 DPS</P> <P>I will admit, Felishanna did better than I expected. However, all the above tests only confirm in hard data what everyone has been saying all along - Fury DPS is at least twice as good as Templar DPS (for ideal circumstances for Templars on normal mobs - stunning mobs, long fights, ...) and at worst (from these examples at least) almost three times as good as Templars (for group encounters - larger groups than three I expect would show even greater disaprity of course).</P> <P>I may do more comparisons, but I am not of a mind to now. Even for the purpose of these tests, playing one then the other, I can <EM>intrinsically feel</EM> how much more powerful the Fury feels than the Templar ... <STRONG>and I know she can</STRONG><STRONG> heal in a group just as well as Felishanna can!</STRONG></P> <P>Some of you have been calling for data for a while (even if I believe you knew the situation as well as I did) .. well now you have it.</P> <P>If you have any other mobs that level 53 characters could sensibly solo that you would like me to measure the DPS of the two and post on, let me know, and I will try to carry out the relevant test. Of course, I don't expect Annaelisa will be 53 all that long, despite only having just levelled, because I am playing her. Yet even though Felishanna is only 5% to 54 (and it is only that close due to performing these tests!), I can't see her reaching 54 anytime soon unless I do more of these.</P> <P>And that breaks my heart, I am telling you. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>SoE, you need to sort this out. Why make a class that is no better healer than any other priest, yet is so much worse in every other domain of play due to awful DPS (and little else of value)? Sigh.</P> <P>Felishanna / Annaelisa.</P>

[MadisonPark]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR>OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>... on the quest "Court of Truth: In the Name of Love", "solo" quest ...</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>That is labeled as a heroic quest.<BR></DIV>

[Caethre]

<P>OOC.</P> <P>I am aware that it is literally so labelled. I said "solo" because I "can" solo it (with either character) and I needed to to do the quest when I logged in that day, so I just did it.</P> <P>It doesn't matter what it's labelled as for the purpose of comparative parsing, however. The purpose of this task is to compare the two classes, soloing. The mob choices were arbitrary, just whatever I was working on at the time. If for some obscure reason, someone doesn't like the fact I used a heroic mob as one of the comparison points, just ignore it and look at the other three comparsions. Or suggest another of your own, and I'll go try it (well, if I can motivate myself to, right now, I'm highly demotivated to play my Templar at all, she feels such a burden sigh).</P>

[Andu]

You'll be moving onto the desert lunatics next Cae in that quest line in PoF. I did it not long ago with my Templar. As they are healers, you can imagine how long each fight took. I would be interested to see how they compare there as well. However, I'm not that much of a sadist to ask you to do it <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[Twizzel]

<DIV> <P><STRONG><EM><U><FONT color=#ffff33>On the up side, both characters found 1 Vanadium Cluster whilst performing this test.  </FONT></U></EM></STRONG></P> <P>I really wish you would have found more...seems you should get some compensation for testing what should have been tested before the Templars got hard broke...I thank you for taking the time and spending the energy in an attempt to save the class I have loved to play in every rpg I have EVER played, for the past 30 years...until now:smileysad:</P></DIV>

[kcirrot]

<P>Great work on your comparison.  Now what do you want to do about it? </P> <P>Do you think Templar should receive a DPS boost?  If so, how much?  And what other strenghts would you give up to get it?  I mean, I'm not really sure it's a fair comparison.  Your Fury, like most, is set up for damage dealing.  You have twice the INT on the Fury.  That plus the burst damage and the higher base and I'm not at all surprised by what you found.</P>

[Caethre]

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kcirrot wrote:<BR> <P>Your Fury, like most, is set up for damage dealing.  You have twice the INT on the Fury. </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I came back and editted this post, to reply to this specific point, because this point is actually not off-topic, it is about the test itself, and it shows a basic lack of understanding of the test being performed here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your first statement as quoted is totally incorrect. My Fury was not "set up for damage dealing". If you have read the thread I referenced on my guild board, you will know, that no attempt whatsoever has been made to equip either of the characters in any specific direction. They both have a full set of the generic tier 6 legendary crafted gear that is available from tradeskillers for each of the 24 character classes in game. This means, my Templar took a full set of Cobalt (like any generic Tier6 Templar would, as would any generic Tier6 Guardian, Paladin, etc), and my Fury took a full set of Scaled Leather (like any generic Tier6 Fury would, as would any generic Tier6 Warden, Bruiser, etc). As for jewelry, both took generic full sets (just about) of pearl jewelry. The Templar has three slightly off-generic (as in, tier 5) items, only for historical reasons (eg, it is not worth paying out lots of gold for t6 hex dolls just for +1 wis). The only gear choices I made for Stats at all was with the ring buffs, and both took a WIS and and INT ring, so it is identical. There are differences in neck/shield for historical reasons, but the sum of these is too small to matter. Infact, the only "imbalance" that may have a slight skewing effect on the results in some cases, is that my Templar has a Screaming Mace, which is to her advantage, but I ajudged that since these tests are not power-intensive, as in, power usage was never an issue, it would not provide any meaningful advantage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In short, they are in perfectly equivalent gear, given their base armour types. They are also in gear that "real" Templars and "real" Furies would be and are wearing in Norrath, not specially frigged gear for testing purposes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Now, you correctly observe of course, that the Fury has about double the INT of the Templar. And being a Fury yourself, you know why that is, and it has absolutely nothing to do with gear. They could both be naked, and she would have this advantage. It is because Furies get huge buffs for INT, and Anna has about (I think, I'll check in game later) +120 INT from her self buffs (not counting the ring buff). This is part of her actually being a Fury, and since this is a class vs class comparison, that is as relevant as it can get!</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, you may conclude, that this is not "fair". Well, maybe it isn't. But what are you saying here? That it is unfair that Furies get such massive INT buffs whereas Templars do not get them? And that this makes the existing situation where Furies get already very much larger base nuke damage spells than Templars, even more imbalanced? I agree with both those points, but I do not think that was the way you wanted it summing up, but that is the real situation here. The fact that the Fury buffs are better for soloing than the Templar ones and that those buffs increase the difference between the Templar and Fury nukes still further, is a good point in analysis of the results. And I too, was not surprised by those results, since I do have Tier 6 characters in both classes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This thread is about measuring DPS of the whole character, which includes the nuke spells, and the self-buffs, and everything. The gear is just generic, it is not the issue, other than as a result of the differences between leather and plate in general of course, because that is part of the class definition, and affects the damage-taking half of the soloing equation. That said, damage taken has not been an issue in any of these tests, it has all been dictated by damage dealt, because the way it works in EQII, soloing with both classes is not limited by damage-absorbing capability, but by DPS, and this is further evidence why for soloing, offensive (damage-improving) buffs are so much more useful than defensive (damage-preventing) buffs in general.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The results of comparing (Nukes+DefensiveBuffs+OffensiveBuffs+ArmourType) for the two classes in the soloing situation are ... the DPS figures I have measured.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Which is why, overall, my conclusion is that not only are Fury nukes superior to Templar nukes, but Fury combat buffs are superior to Templar combat buffs, for the solo/small group game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That's just my interpretation of the results. I will leave the reader to decide theirs from the figures for themselves.</DIV> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kcirrot wrote:<BR> <P>Do you think Templar should receive a DPS boost?  If so, how much?  And what other strenghts would you give up to get it? </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>This thread is specifically for data measurements and analysis. I do not want to assist in it being taken off-topic into discussing the way forward, so I will not reply to that here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>If others have data, or requests for other data to be measured, here is the place.... (if i can face it).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Thanks.</DIV></DIV><p>Message Edited by Caethre on <span class=date_text>12-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:47 AM</span>

[Zabumt]

<P>Just for fun Caethre, it would be interesting to see the comparison against undead mobs.  Living Tombs is a good place to test if you so wish.</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Zabumtik on <span class=date_text>12-19-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:17 PM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Zabumtik wrote:<div></div> <p>Just for fun Caethre, it would be interesting to see the comparison against undead mobs.  Living Tombs is a good place to test if you so wish.</p> <p>Message Edited by Zabumtik on <span class="date_text">12-19-2005</span> <span class="time_text">11:17 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Just mathematics, templar DPS is increased by 20% against undead.</span><div></div>

[kenji]

my own experience with adept 3 nukes and dots, w/o taking hits (someone taunt for me, heh) on heroic undead i can make 170 dps max (w/o any resist). not once can hit 200. even i use my Cobalt 2h blunt for meleeing the mob's back <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Zabumt]

<DIV>What would also be interesting to see is what other priest classes besides the Fury are dpsing at when they're going at it hard.  Hell, it would be interesting to see how a Fury is dpsing as a solo healer in a reasonably challenging group for that matter.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[kenji]

<DIV>if templar can solo heal the challenging group, fury can do as well. maybe in really tuff fight, both wont go nuke mode, aka 0 dps. when the zone is no longer challenge for the group (upgraded equipment, spells to M1 etc) the usefulness of fury will just pwn templar =)</DIV>

[locnarr]

<DIV>Well, my Christmas is ruined.</DIV>

[kcirrot]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Now, you correctly observe of course, that the Fury has about double the INT of the Templar. And being a Fury yourself, you know why that is, and it has absolutely nothing to do with gear. They could both be naked, and she would have this advantage. It is because Furies get huge buffs for INT, and Anna has about (I think, I'll check in game later) +120 INT from her self buffs (not counting the ring buff). This is part of her actually being a Fury, and since this is a class vs class comparison, that is as relevant as it can get!</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, you may conclude, that this is not "fair". Well, maybe it isn't. But what are you saying here? That it is unfair that Furies get such massive INT buffs whereas Templars do not get them? And that this makes the existing situation where Furies get already very much larger base nuke damage spells than Templars, even more imbalanced? I agree with both those points, but I do not think that was the way you wanted it summing up, but that is the real situation here. The fact that the Fury buffs are better for soloing than the Templar ones and that those buffs increase the difference between the Templar and Fury nukes still further, is a good point in analysis of the results. And I too, was not surprised by those results, since I do have Tier 6 characters in both classes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well, that was my point actually.  Furies are designed to do much more damage than Templars.  I'm quite sure you've done a fair test, but the point is that if you want a Templar who has decent DPS, then you have to work harder than an equivalent level Fury.  You'll probably never surpass a Fury, but it seems to me that you didn't attempt to maximize your DPS at all.</P> <P>I guess there's a certain validity to that, playing like normal Templars play, but if you're going to compare DPS on support classes, then it would be prudent I would think to try and get the best out the Templar.  Because the question really isn't whether Furies do more damage, of course they do, it's whether Templars can do sufficient damage to contribute to a group and solo.<BR></P>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote>kcirrot wrote: <p>Well, that was my point actually.  Furies are designed to do much more damage than Templars.  I'm quite sure you've done a fair test, but the point is that if you want a Templar who has decent DPS, then you have to work harder than an equivalent level Fury.  You'll probably never surpass a Fury, but it seems to me that you didn't attempt to maximize your DPS at all.</p> <p>I guess there's a certain validity to that, playing like normal Templars play, but if you're going to compare DPS on support classes, then it would be prudent I would think to try and get the best out the Templar.  Because the question really isn't whether Furies do more damage, of course they do, it's whether Templars can do sufficient damage to contribute to a group and solo.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>And templars <b><i>were</i></b> disigned to heal a lot more that furies. Not that that desing is scrapped, we expect that the design you refer to, is scrapped too.</span><div></div>

[Manit]

<font color="#ccff00"><span>Because the question really isn't whether Furies do more damage, of course they do, it's whether Templars can do sufficient damage to contribute to a group and solo. --- a previous posterAnd templars <b><i>were</i></b> disigned to heal a lot more that furies. Not that that desing is scrapped, we expect that the design you refer to, is scrapped too. --- a previous poster</span></font>I agree. All the subclasses has a role and SOE should define these roles in addition to the mythological BS describing each subclass in the stations class diagram.This reminds me of the Berzerker vs. Guardian. When chat'n with a berzerker and ya say Gaurdians should mitigate better than berzerkers, then the berzerkers get insulted for some reason kike not knowing the purpose of being a Berzerker.I hope SOE one day defines a purpose for each class and subclass and make the combat revamps stick to their purpose instead of walking outside of their purpose.I think this entire thought of "all subclass and classes should be approximately equall" is political BS between disgruntled players and developers thinking they can satisfy them.<div></div>

[Sokolov]

Well, as a zerker I think of my role primarily as a tank. I might not be nearly as good as a guardian, but I come close.  The tradeoff is that I can produce better DPS. I think healers are similiarily balanced in group play - any priest can handle most jobs, but each has additional side benefits which aid the group in different ways.  (Altho there is a different underlying issue with how much healing is actually needed in most non-named/epic encounters). Solo, though, based on evidence presented, Templars do need a boost when viewed against Furies, but then, my Defiler isn't particularly good at it either so *shrug*. <div></div>

[kcirrot]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE>kcirrot wrote:<BR> <P>Well, that was my point actually.  Furies are designed to do much more damage than Templars.  I'm quite sure you've done a fair test, but the point is that if you want a Templar who has decent DPS, then you have to work harder than an equivalent level Fury.  You'll probably never surpass a Fury, but it seems to me that you didn't attempt to maximize your DPS at all.</P> <P>I guess there's a certain validity to that, playing like normal Templars play, but if you're going to compare DPS on support classes, then it would be prudent I would think to try and get the best out the Templar.  Because the question really isn't whether Furies do more damage, of course they do, it's whether Templars can do sufficient damage to contribute to a group and solo.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>And templars <B><I>were</I></B> disigned to heal a lot more that furies. Not that that desing is scrapped, we expect that the design you refer to, is scrapped too.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Actually they weren't.  The devs in beta tried hard to make sure that clerics did not heal better than other priests.  Had the playerbase not forced that last minute change to every spell in the game, Templars would not have had the advantage they did for so long.<BR>

[Manit]

<font color="#ccff00"> Solo, though, based on evidence presented, Templars do need a boost when viewed against Furies, but then, my Defiler isn't particularly good at it either so *shrug*. --- a previous poster <font color="#ffffff">How much of a boost? Or, is "boost" a code word for "approximately equal" to Furies (or to whomever)? This is the real question. "Approximately equal". I understand how players would like to call this just being "balanced" however I call this form of "balance" to be political BS blurring the roles of subclasses. Each subclass should have uniqueness. However, I understand how disgruntled players view uniquenes as superiority which is not allowed. At the least, lets try to compare apples to apples (if possible). If players want to compare the offensive druid, the Fury, with a cleric, then compare the Fury with the offensive cleric, the Inquisitor. Then again, the Templar forum would probably make this discussion out of place. Templar vs. Fury? Sounds a bit apples to oranges. Fury vs. Warden would be apples to apples. Templar vs. Inquisitor would be apples to apples. Honestly, I think Druids should fundamentally execute more DPS than Clerics, and I think Clerics should fundamentally execute more healing then Druids. Coherent, structured definitions.  However, SOE and particular players seem to have other plans. I am curious where this path will lead in a few years from now.<span></span> </font></font> <div></div>

[Manit]

I think definition needs to be formed.<div></div>

[Manit]

<font color="#ccff00"><font color="#ffffff"> Honestly, I think Druids should fundamentally execute more DPS than Clerics, and I think Clerics should fundamentally execute more healing then Druids. --- a previous poster</font></font>And...Shamans should fundamentally mitigate more than the other priest classes.<div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>kcirrot wrote: Actually they weren't.  The devs in beta tried hard to make sure that clerics did not heal better than other priests.  Had the playerbase not forced that last minute change to every spell in the game, Templars would not have had the advantage they did for so long. <div></div><hr></blockquote>So, where is the statement that furies are disigned to carry more DPS than templars? That is right, it exists only in the mental image of a fury, there is no such grand plan.</span><div></div>

[kcirrot]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kcirrot wrote:<BR>Actually they weren't.  The devs in beta tried hard to make sure that clerics did not heal better than other priests.  Had the playerbase not forced that last minute change to every spell in the game, Templars would not have had the advantage they did for so long.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>So, where is the statement that furies are disigned to carry more DPS than templars? That is right, it exists only in the mental image of a fury, there is no such grand plan.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>You realize, that I really don't care if Templars had equal DPS to Furies.  Heck, they could give Templar the Fury Strike of Storms line, change the damage type to Divine and put it on a separate timer than your other nukes and I wouldn't care. </P> <P>Do you get it?  I don't care if Templars have better DPS.  I think that would be fine.  I just don't want there to be a "best" healer.</P> <DIV>EDIT:  Oh FYI, Furies were intended to have the largest nuke of the priests:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/news_ff.vm?FeatureName=combatchanges2&section=development" target=_blank>http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/news_ff.vm?FeatureName=combatchanges2&section=development</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Scroll down to the description of the Strike line.</DIV><p>Message Edited by kcirrot on <span class=date_text>12-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:00 AM</span>

[Manit]

<font color="#ccff00">"I just don't want there to be a 'best' healer." --- A previous poster</font>Why are some folk so hard pressed to accept anything unique?Honestly, I believe these folk are scared of anything considered unique as the quoted statement supports. Sounds like the childish "if i can't do it neither should you" mantra.If all the subclassess are "approximately equall," then how will players choose one subclass vs. another subclass? the lore of the subclass?<div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>kcirrot wrote:<div></div><p>You realize, that I really don't care if Templars had equal DPS to Furies.  Heck, they could give Templar the Fury Strike of Storms line, change the damage type to Divine and put it on a separate timer than your other nukes and I wouldn't care. </p> <p>Do you get it?  I don't care if Templars have better DPS.  I think that would be fine.  I just don't want there to be a "best" healer.</p> <div>EDIT:  Oh FYI, Furies were intended to have the largest nuke of the priests:</div> <div> </div> <div>http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/news_ff.vm?FeatureName=combatchanges2&section=development</div> <div> </div> <div>Scroll down to the description of the Strike line.</div><p>Message Edited by kcirrot on <span class="date_text">12-20-2005</span> <span class="time_text">10:00 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>I didn't see anything referring to 'furies do more dps than templars'. You see templars have the largest direct heal in game. But you didn't realize that the amount it heals per time unit is the same as all priests have. So even if furies are to have biggest nuke by description, there is no description that they are to do most damage per time unit. And if you dont care, why are you still posting false information like that?</span><div></div>

[Wossname]

<span>Caethre Thanks for posting the test in such detail and putting hard numbers to what soloing and casual group Templars know instinctively. Hopefully some good will come of it <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I could comment on some of the replies but I do not wish to derail the thread at all. regards Wossname </span><div></div>

[kcirrot]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Manitos wrote:<BR><FONT color=#ccff00>"I just don't want there to be a 'best' healer." --- A previous poster</FONT><BR><BR>Why are some folk so hard pressed to accept anything unique?<BR><BR>Honestly, I believe these folk are scared of anything considered unique as the quoted statement supports. Sounds like the childish "if i can't do it neither should you" mantra.<BR><BR>If all the subclassess are "approximately equall," then how will players choose one subclass vs. another subclass? the lore of the subclass?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Uniqueness is exactly what dies when you have a "best" healer.  Pick the subclass that most fits your conception of the character.  That's the problem with so many people who play Templars.  They have no conception of character.  They just wanted to be the best healer.  They have no other conception.  They care nothing about being a cleric.   I wanted a natural priest who uses the magic of animal and nature.  I got it.  I was happy when the class was [Removed for Content] and I'm esctatic now.

[kcirrot]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kcirrot wrote:<BR> <P>You realize, that I really don't care if Templars had equal DPS to Furies.  Heck, they could give Templar the Fury Strike of Storms line, change the damage type to Divine and put it on a separate timer than your other nukes and I wouldn't care. </P> <P>Do you get it?  I don't care if Templars have better DPS.  I think that would be fine.  I just don't want there to be a "best" healer.</P> <DIV>EDIT:  Oh FYI, Furies were intended to have the largest nuke of the priests:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/news_ff.vm?FeatureName=combatchanges2§ion=developm ent</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Scroll down to the description of the Strike line.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by kcirrot on <SPAN class=date_text>12-20-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:00 AM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I didn't see anything referring to 'furies do more dps than templars'. You see templars have the largest direct heal in game. But you didn't realize that the amount it heals per time unit is the same as all priests have. So even if furies are to have biggest nuke by description, there is no description that they are to do most damage per time unit.<BR><BR>And if you dont care, why are you still posting false information like that?<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I didn't post false information.  Read what I wrote, I specifically stated that Furies were meant to have the largest NUKE of the priests.  I said nothing about DPS. 

[Manit]

<div></div><font color="#ccff00">"Uniqueness is exactly what dies when you have a "best" healer. " --- a previous poster</font>By definition. Uniqueness is "Being the only one of its kind." If one subclass is better skilled in one specific area, then how does this defeat uniqueness? Quite the converse. Proves the uniqueness. Heh.<font color="#ccff00">"I wanted a natural priest who uses the magic of animal and nature."  --- a previous poster</font>Heh. Thanks for supporting my following quote. In the current construct of the archtype hierarchy, players choose their subclass according to the lore and none other otherwise the player will be aggravated.<font color="#ccffff">"If all the subclassess are "approximately equall," then how will players choose one subclass vs. another subclass? the lore of the subclass?" --- a previous poster</font><div></div>Heh. Honestly, I actually choose my subclass according to symbolism. However, lore is the only criteria seperating the subclasses within the priest classes.I understand. SOE and players chose this path and the next few years will be quite interesting.(blah, forget coloring)<p>Message Edited by Manitos on <span class=date_text>12-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:45 PM</span>

[Manit]

Uniqueness does exist within the subclasses implementation and lore. However, the same role is achieved. I call this politically correct uniqueness to not offend. heh. <span>:smileywink:</span><div></div>

[Manit]

<span><font color="#ccff00">"Thanks for posting the test in such detail and putting hard numbers to what soloing and casual group Templars know instinctively. Hopefully some good will come of it </font><font color="#ccff00"><img src="../../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" border="0" height="16" width="16"></font><font color="#ccff00"> I could comment on some of the replies but I do not wish to derail the thread at all." --- a previous poster</font>Yeah, all the data gathering is quite interesting. Exact purpose of the EQ2 Station forums to help whoever.Now I am even more depressed when soloing than before. just kidding. <span>:smileywink:</span></span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<P>**REMOVED DUE TO INAPPRORPIATE CONTENT**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:18 PM</span>

[Manit]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><span><font color="#ccff00">"So you posted something irrelevant to prove you dont care? Or what was your point in posting that useless information?" --- a previous poster</font>I believe his point was to state Furies were made to have the best nuke. Having the best nuke does not mean having the best DPS. Many other aspects to consider when considering DPS, healing, and the like. Quite the converse to say he does not care or to say the information is useless.However, in the context of "approximate equality", a better DPS (or better anything in fact) should not exist regarding within the mage archtype. Heheh. I think this is where SOE is trying to progress with the combat revamps. In the context of the priest classes, all priest classes having the same role (i.e., protecting the health pool). Blah, a bit simple but I can adapt to this. <span>:smileyhappy:</span></span><p>Message Edited by Manitos on <span class=date_text>12-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:44 PM</span>

[Nadain]

<P>Ok I have a question if you guys dont mind. Oh I am a newbie just so you know which side of the fence I am coming from<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. I played EQ2 when it launched but quit for a time. I had a 24th dirge and 24th SK. When I came back I wanted to go back to my old days in EQ of playing a group healer. I also solo quest a good bit so I needed someone that could at least solo decent. I looked at the fury and the templer. In my mind I was thinking that the templer would be a main group healer and a fury would be a "could be group healer" but better at soloing. </P> <P> </P> <P>Here is what I am seeing and my question.</P> <P>1. Fury and templer heal about the same and either can be main healer for a group without either breaking there back to get the job done.</P> <P>2. The fury solos twice as good as the templer (for what ever reason. Reason does not matter. Only the fact)</P> <P>3. Question time: They heal pretty close to the same. The fury out solos the templer bad. What EXACTLY did the temple get to balance the massive advantage the fury has in solo?</P> <P>Heck I can already see a differance between my druid and my cleric LOL. Help me understand why I sould select the templer as main over the fury because right now I cant see it.</P> <P>PS. Just so you know my play style. I am very fluid on what I play. I like all play styles. When I played EQ and then EQ2 with RL friends and family I was always willing to run the "class" we needed in our group (healer, tank, etc). All my RL friends and family have quit playing and so did I for a time. So if play style is not really a concern to me then WHY should I play a templer? Whats in it for me? No I dont want to play the "Most UBER". I want to play a guy that can: solo when I feel like it, group when I feel like it, heal when I group, carry my weight when I group. Who is the best at that four part package right now?</P>

[Andu]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nadain wrote:<BR> <P>Heck I can already see a differance between my druid and my cleric LOL. Help me understand why I sould select the templer as main over the fury because right now I cant see it.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Play your Fury. If you have a flexible play style then you need a flexible character. Templar's are one of the least flexible in the game.</P> <P>BTW, the reason you cannot see why to pick a Templar is because there is no reason to at the moment.</P>

[rollando]

<P>@ Nadain : you answered your own questions :smileywink:</P> <P>Druids have another advantage you did not mention : their group heals over time make them much better group healers ( in AoE heavy situations for example ) than templars / inquisitors.<BR><BR>At the moment, the only role I see for a templar is as raid healer in the MT group ... but that's only 1 slot in a 24 persons raid, in a guild with a raiding activity ...</P><p>Message Edited by rollando on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:18 AM</span>

[rollando]

<DIV>Could we insist again on an important thing : the solution to the priest imbalances this thread points is NOT a nerf to furies.</DIV><p>Message Edited by rollando on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:25 AM</span>

[quetzaqotl]

<P>But youre forgetting one thing here guys it has been stated many times that soloing will not be balanced as some classes have a sec ability aka offensive buffing for furies that makes em have more dps if all the buffs are on himself: makes em solo faster.</P> <P>The numbers you posted are nice Caeth bu really can anyone say it wasnt common knowledge before you posted it it has been said many times before furies'dps is about 2x as much as templars in solo situations (posted dps numbers myself some time ago and got the same numbers abouts tho indeed I wonder how much dps youll do against undead btw maybe vs how much dps youll do against elementals with furies?).</P> <P>Our offensive buffs as in thornskin/int buffs/primal fury give us an edge for sure and maybe even w/o those buffs well do more dmg but furies and wardens were put in the top tier in the dps for priest tree while templars were at the lowest tier you may think the tree is broken or incorrect but I think it was an avg to how much dps a class can do as in when Im healing or in group im doing far less dmg avg that and my dps is much lower.</P> <P>We contribute to a group by doing some dmg whenever I can, in that way making a fight last shorter.</P> <P>Saying healings is equal but dps is not= imbalance is a bit easy.</P> <P>As yes shaman dont have the dps druids have but they have slows f.i. which have a dramatic impact on how much dmg a mob does to a group, templars have huge hp buffs also your big hp buff has the sec effect of increasing slash, could name a few other spells you have and furies don't but you know your spells better than I.</P> <P>Solo imbalance is a fact wizards and conj solo much faster than I can, Moorguard has said a long time ago that there will NEVER be a balance between classes in the solo dept.</P> <P>Btw you should see the difference in xp between soloing and grouping, hmmm I d rather group instead of grinding stuff solo (is faster drops better loot and well this is a mmorpg is it not?).</P><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:26 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>quetzaqotl wrote:<div></div> <p>But youre forgetting one thing here guys it has been stated many times that soloing will not be balanced as some classes have a sec ability aka offensive buffing for furies that makes em have more dps if all the buffs are on himself: makes em solo faster.</p><hr></blockquote>Here is where your logic goes wrong: Healing is balanced to take defensive buffs into account. This means that a fury can keep a group alive with their healing spells just as well as a templar with every spell templar has. And this is a fact. Templar defensive utility has been matched by the extra heals furies get. So, furies have the defensive (= healing) capability of templars, but templars have nowhere near the offensive abilities of a fury. You can try proving this false easilty by proving that furies are not as good healers as templars are in grouping situations. But since furies are, you ca try, but you will not succeed. Furies can keep a group alive without the defensive buffs just as easily as a templar can with them. So the defence of templars has been trivialized by giving more heals for those that dont have those buffs. Templars on the other hand were given nothing to compensate. But again, try proving me wrong. All you need to do is to prove that furies cannot heal.</span><div></div>

[Asp728]

<DIV>So is the purpose of this thread to increase Templar overall DPS, give Templars more offensive buffs, nerf Furies or increase Templar soloing abilities?  If it was to increase templar DPS, wouldn't it be beneficial to show how Templars parse vs. all other priest classes instead of one?  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How many people would be happier if they just made one healer class just called "Priest"?  That way, there'd be no balance concerns and everyone would have the same abilities and do everything exactly the same - which is what people seem to be asking for.  Equal abilities in every aspect.  </DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Asp728 wrote:<div>So is the purpose of this thread to increase Templar overall DPS, give Templars more offensive buffs, nerf Furies or increase Templar soloing abilities?  If it was to increase templar DPS, wouldn't it be beneficial to show how Templars parse vs. all other priest classes instead of one?  </div> <div> </div> <div>How many people would be happier if they just made one healer class just called "Priest"?  That way, there'd be no balance concerns and everyone would have the same abilities and do everything exactly the same - which is what people seem to be asking for.  Equal abilities in every aspect.  </div><hr></blockquote>Well they should do to other priests what they did to druids. Simply multiply our nukes so that the DPS matches that of a druid in full burn. Druids have about 1/2 of the spells that heal compared to a templar, but they still heal the same amount per time unit. So just return the favor and let templars do the DPS a fury does with all their spells with the 4 nukes we have.</span><div></div>

[Bhee]

<P>Well, what I et from the posts and the parse results is this:</P> <P>1. Templars do about half the damage of Furys (from first post)<BR>2. Templars heal same as Furys (according to Devs) <BR>3. Templars do not have any goodies like group invisibility, compabt speed increase<BR><BR>Now, before you start flaming me, consider this:</P> <P>1. Should the Templars have same DPS as Furys while keeping heals same? <BR>OR <BR>2. Should Templars be given better heals than Furys while keeping their DPS as now?<BR><BR>I personally would like option 2, but time and again the Devs have shown that they have more intelligence than all of the 350k players :smileywink:.</P> <P>Bheema</P> <P>60 Templar/60 Alchemist<BR>Antonia Bayle server</P>

[quetzaqotl]

<P>Hmm yeah and what it all boils down to again is the biggest problem is that combat atm doesnt always need the def buffing templars have over furies.</P> <P>We have offense buffs while you guys have defense buffs like mor hp proc heals and what not.</P> <P>Those sec abilities are something next to balanced healing.</P> <DIV>What you are saying is def ability of a templars is to heal all your def buffs contribute to equal healing of furies?</DIV> <DIV>So you think the added 1 k in hp proc heals and more = a furies ability to prevend/heal dmg.</DIV> <DIV>As in all your def buffs are worth crap and furies have those offensive buffs EXTRA over templars?</DIV> <DIV>Utility is balanced imo as in sow/invis/potc vs. soothe/odyssey/full rez sow all fury cept for potc can be bought for some silver.</DIV> <DIV>You buff defensively we buff offensively hence us doing more dmg while you get better def also in armor (yeah yeah broken atm) youre able to outlast more and receive more dmg.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Once again soloing was never to be balanced among classes, nor was it ever meant to be balanced against better heals or whatever.</DIV> <DIV>Furies were semi broken pre cu and here there are some people saying that that was balanced cause we could solo better, that imo is bs.</DIV> <DIV>I posted screenshots of the spells I use at t6 Id like to see the same for other classes so that I(/we) can start comparing a little for ourselves.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>quetzaqotl wrote:<div>What you are saying is def ability of a templars is to heal all your def buffs contribute to equal healing of furies? <font color="#ffff00">Yes, fully buffed templar in a group heals the same as offensively buffed fury.</font> </div> <div>So you think the added 1 k in hp proc heals and more = a furies ability to prevend/heal dmg. <font color="#ffff00">No, BitF and Hibernation take care of the healing problem, together they fill what void is left in comparison of HoT and reactive plus the defensive utility what templars have. This can be seen easily, just make the same run with a templar and a fury, fury will do just as good work as the templar but will also make about 200DPS while templar does about 40.</font> </div> <div>As in all your def buffs are worth crap and furies have those offensive buffs EXTRA over templars? <font color="#ffff00">They are not worth crap since they give templars extra healing to get closer to druids in healing power. They are crap from the point of view that they should give an edge to templars. This they dont do.</font> </div> <div>Utility is balanced imo as in sow/invis/potc vs. soothe/odyssey/full rez sow all fury cept for potc can be bought for some silver. <font color="#ffff00">But offensive and defensive buffs are not balanced.</font> </div> <div>You buff defensively we buff offensively hence us doing more dmg while you get better def also in armor (yeah yeah broken atm) youre able to outlast more and receive more dmg.</div> <div>  <font color="#ffff00">Yes, but templar DPS has not made to match that offensive buff even though fury healing has been adjusted to match templar defensive buffs.</font> </div> <div>Once again soloing was never to be balanced among classes, nor was it ever meant to be balanced against better heals or whatever.</div> <div>Furies were semi broken pre cu and here there are some people saying that that was balanced cause we could solo better, that imo is bs.</div> <div>I posted screenshots of the spells I use at t6 Id like to see the same for other classes so that I(/we) can start comparing a little for ourselves.</div> <div> </div><font color="#ffff00">Since when? You are talking about your own fiction now. And the fact that furies were broken is no excuse for not fixing templars.</font><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>quetzaqotl wrote: <p>But youre forgetting one thing here guys it has been stated many times that soloing will not be balanced as some classes have a sec ability aka offensive buffing for furies that makes em have more dps if all the buffs are on himself: makes em solo faster.</p><hr></blockquote>Here is where your logic goes wrong: Healing is balanced to take defensive buffs into account. This means that a fury can keep a group alive with their healing spells just as well as a templar with every spell templar has. And this is a fact. Templar defensive utility has been matched by the extra heals furies get. </span> <span> So, furies have the defensive (= healing) capability of templars, but templars have nowhere near the offensive abilities of a fury. You can try proving this false easilty by proving that furies are not as good healers as templars are in grouping situations. But since furies are, you ca try, but you will not succeed. Furies can keep a group alive without the defensive buffs just as easily as a templar can with them. So the defence of templars has been trivialized by giving more heals for those that dont have those buffs. Templars on the other hand were given nothing to compensate. But again, try proving me wrong. All you need to do is to prove that furies cannot heal.</span> <hr></blockquote>Here is where your logic goes wrong:  Healing is balanced to take encounters into account. This means that any priest can keep a group alive as well as a Templar, but a Templar, with the additional defensive buffs, have an easier time of doing so.  And this is a fact.  Templar defensive utility has been matched by the additional DPS enhancements furies get.</span> You can try and prove this false easily by proving that Furies are just as good healers as Templars in group situations.  But since Templars do have an advantage, you can try, but you will not succeed.  Templars can keep a group alive against tougher opponents which the defensive buffs allows.    I do agree that most typical encounters are trivialized such that defense no longer matters (some of my tanks run around Poet's in their status clothes), but a lot goes into why encounters are trivialized and is not strictly a Templar issue.  Increased encounter difficulties would fully express the Templar defensive advantage.  So templars do not need to be given anything to compensate. Let's look at Defiler vs Templar for a moment. Assume that Wards(when they aren't broken!) and Reactives are balanced.  Defiler heals are the same as Templar heals.  Defiler DPS is roughly the same as Templar DPS as well, as long as you ignore Maelstrom of Dismay (which is the Defiler "stun heal" which is an AE spell that requires a target, and drains health and power to the group - it is awesome in the right situations, but it's far below the calibre of the other "stun heals" in terms of potential healing potency).  The difference is that Templars buff defensively, and Defilers debuff.  Both help mitigate damage that comes to the tank, but does so differently. Likewise, Furies and Templars are balanced similiarily.  Only instead of debuffs, Furies are offensive.  Personally, unlike many people who say "don't nerf Furies," I think that their nukes are a little too powerful for a priest class. I also agree with the assessment that priests need some type of damage enchancement to make soloing less tedious. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:37 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote>Sokolov wrote:<div></div><span>Here is where your logic goes wrong:  Healing is balanced to take encounters into account. This means that any priest can keep a group alive as well as a Templar, but a Templar, with the additional defensive buffs, have an easier time of doing so.  And this is a fact.  Templar defensive utility has been matched by the additional DPS enhancements furies get.</span> <hr></blockquote>Hmm, let me see. In order to bring my full capacity into use, I need to use 2 reactives, 2 direct heals, fate line, and two proc heals. I also need to have cast GoC on as many people as possible and have my defensive buffs up. A fury has 2 HoT's and 3 direct heals in use and they do exactly the same job with those as I do fully buffed. And the fury doesn't even have to have his/her offensive buffs on to do that job. Now tell me again that templars do it easier... And exactly what advantage do templars have? primary heals and single target heals combined, a lvl 52 fury outheals the templar. With our lotto heals we might get to same results as the fury if we are lucky. And furies and templars are not balanced the way defilers and templars are. That is the whole point here. You can try to present any facts, but I doubt you will.</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote>Sokolov wrote:<span>Here is where your logic goes wrong:  Healing is balanced to take encounters into account. This means that any priest can keep a group alive as well as a Templar, but a Templar, with the additional defensive buffs, have an easier time of doing so.  And this is a fact.  Templar defensive utility has been matched by the additional DPS enhancements furies get.</span> <hr></blockquote>Hmm, let me see. In order to bring my full capacity into use, I need to use 2 reactives, 2 direct heals, fate line, and two proc heals. I also need to have cast GoC on as many people as possible and have my defensive buffs up. A fury has 2 HoT's and 3 direct heals in use and they do exactly the same job with those as I do fully buffed. And the fury doesn't even have to have his/her offensive buffs on to do that job. </span><span>ow tell me again that templars do it easier... And exactly what advantage do templars have? primary heals and single target heals combined, a lvl 52 fury outheals the templar. With our lotto heals we might get to same results as the fury if we are lucky. And furies and templars are not balanced the way defilers and templars are. That is the whole point here. You can try to present any facts, but I doubt you will.</span> <hr></blockquote> So you believe Furies actually heal better with just basic heal lines?  Thus your defensive utility are needed to compensate?  Does anyone else agree with this? Also, are you saying that Defilers and Templars ARE balanced?  Thus the odd one out is Fury and not the Templar? And words aren't facts based on what you believe - so stop pretending only you can present them.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:34 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span>So you believe Furies actually heal better with just basic heal lines?  Thus your defensive utility are needed to compensate?  Does anyone else agree with this?</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Well at least I dont heal the group any better despite that defensive utility. My defensive utility gives about 1,2k health to mt and 653 to all group members. Then I have also the 8% proc that will block next incoming hit. The first in fact does not affect my healing, it just gives me one more hit to cast my heals. But since my heals are as slow as they are, if the target does not die soon after this, mt will. I have a 7s stun which is usable each 30 + 3s. So in all my defensive utility will block about 20 to 25% of incoming damage if I am lucky with the proc. As for the heals. On average templar single target reactive will heal 378 per tick, the spell can be cast once per 8s and for 5 ticks. On average this is 7,5 times per minute = 37,5 =  14k healed per minute on average. Fury HoTs will tick for 30 times per minute = 11k healed. Group reactive has 27 tics for 275 on average = 7,3k while group HoT is 24 tics = 6,5k. So reactives heal 21,3k per minute and HoT's heal 17,5k per minute. Now the difference comes with direct heals. Templar direct heals are 12,7k per minute on average while fury direct heals are 12,1k. This does not include BitF, this will give furies 8 x 694 = 5,5k  per minute more healing power, and it can be doubled when it really matters. Now this will bring templar total healing power per minute to 34k and fury total to 35,6k to 41,1k. Difference in healing power is from 1,6k to 7,1k. Now if we pick up a single mob, templars can reduce DPS by 25% by using the stun every time it is up. This means templars can deal with about the same damage as furies when the target does not resist and templar has time to stun. On the other hand, while the target is stunned, on average, 5 single target and 4 group reactive procs are wasted, this means templars will heal 3k less. So templars are at 37k and furies at 35,6 to 41k. Now templars still have Mark line, involuntary curate and GoC. Involuntary will heal 140 per minute on average (5% proc = 1 proc per minute) and Mark line will proc about 1,5 times and heal for 180 per minute. GoC will also proc 1,5 times per person, so on average I get 3 procs per minute healing for 1,1k. This brings templars up to 38,4k. So with all our defensive utility in use, furies can still heal more when it really matters. With a multiple encounter mob, templars reduce more of mob dps with mez and stun if the group plays along, those two combined will effectively reduce one targets DPS by about 75%. Also when group gets hit by AE, furies healing power is a lot more while templars really cannot get any more healing from themselves exept with GoC proc. So it is pure mathematics, even our defensive utility is not always enough to compensate. </span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span> Also, are you saying that Defilers and Templars ARE balanced?  Thus the odd one out is Fury and not the Templar? And words aren't facts based on what you believe - so stop pretending only you can present them.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I didn't say templars and defilers are balanced, YOU did. I assumed you had looked into facts. I guess you weren't. Well with fury/templar, I have looked into facts. That is one reason why one certain poster is silent most of the time.</span><div></div>

[Aleph]

I have a few comments here.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>My defensive utility gives about 1,2k health to mt and 653 to all group members. Then I have also the 8% proc that will block next incoming hit. The first in fact does not affect my healing, it just gives me one more hit to cast my heals. But since my heals are as slow as they are, if the target does not die soon after this, mt will. I have a 7s stun which is usable each 30 + 3s. So in all my defensive utility will block about 20 to 25% of incoming damage if I am lucky with the proc.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The value of hit points are in the buffer they give you.  1.2k hit points is a nice buffer to handle an unexpected spike.  This is enough time to recover ground some if you are caught off guard, and if you are steadily losing ground in a high-damage situation, 1.2k may give you enough time to finish the mob before it finishes you.</P> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P></P> <HR> <P><BR>As for the heals. On average templar single target reactive will heal 378 per tick, the spell can be cast once per 8s and for 5 ticks. On average this is 7,5 times per minute = 37,5 =  14k healed per minute on average. Fury HoTs will tick for 30 times per minute = 11k healed. Group reactive has 27 tics for 275 on average = 7,3k while group HoT is 24 tics = 6,5k. So reactives heal 21,3k per minute and HoT's heal 17,5k per minute. Now the difference comes with direct heals. Templar direct heals are 12,7k per minute on average while fury direct heals are 12,1k. This does not include BitF, this will give furies 8 x 694 = 5,5k  per minute more healing power, and it can be doubled when it really matters. Now this will bring templar total healing power per minute to 34k and fury total to 35,6k to 41,1k. Difference in healing power is from 1,6k to 7,1k.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Assuming these series of casts are even possible, which I doubt, they will cost a fury about 5,900 power and a templar 4,600 power.  Neither caster wants to be in this situation.  Luckily, templars have alternatives to prevent them, as you discuss below.<BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P></P> <HR> <P><BR>Now if we pick up a single mob, templars can reduce DPS by 25% by using the stun every time it is up. This means templars can deal with about the same damage as furies when the target does not resist and templar has time to stun. On the other hand, while the target is stunned, on average, 5 single target and 4 group reactive procs are wasted, this means templars will heal 3k less. So templars are at 37k and furies at 35,6 to 41k. Now templars still have Mark line, involuntary curate and GoC. Involuntary will heal 140 per minute on average (5% proc = 1 proc per minute) and Mark line will proc about 1,5 times and heal for 180 per minute. GoC will also proc 1,5 times per person, so on average I get 3 procs per minute healing for 1,1k. This brings templars up to 38,4k. So with all our defensive utility in use, furies can still heal more when it really matters.</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Reactive procs are not wasted during stuns, they are merely put off.  They are only wasted if too few hits land during the 30 seconds to use them up.  While the mob is stunned, the templar doesn't have to refresh reactives or spam heals, because the mob is not attacking.  Damage prevented is better than damage healed, and the power savings is huge because you don't have to cast to keep up 21% of the time. </P> <P>For what it's worth, involuntary procs 20% of the time now.  Both lotto heals go off more than 1 or 2 times per minute in my experience, but even with higher proc rates, they are a small part of the whole equation and can probably be neglected. </P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <HR> <BR>With a multiple encounter mob, templars reduce more of mob dps with mez and stun if the group plays along, those two combined will effectively reduce one targets DPS by about 75%.<BR><BR>Also when group gets hit by AE, furies healing power is a lot more while templars really cannot get any more healing from themselves exept with GoC proc.<BR><BR>So it is pure mathematics, even our defensive utility is not always enough to compensate.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I agree that druids in general will shine during AE encounters, although the 30 second group magic damage ward/mitigation buff for templars helps out quite a bit in some cases.</P> <P>In the end, you may well be right about fury and templar healing balance, but your analysis here is far too simplistic to make your case well. </P> <P>Alephin<BR></P>

[Wossname]

Previous poster: <font color="#ffff00"><span>Utility is balanced imo as in sow/invis/potc vs. soothe/odyssey/full rez sow all fury cept for potc can be bought for some silver.<font color="#ffffcc"> </font><font color="#ffffcc"> </font><font color="#ffffcc">Balanced? You are kidding me, right? I almost never use Soothe in any situation, Odyssey I have cast maybe 10 times in 49 levels. SoW I would use all the time (my Bard alt has pathfinding permanently up - nearest comparison I have), Invisibility I would use incredibly frequently (my Wizard alt uses Gather Shadows very frequently, it is a wonderful spell). A Templar gets two junk spells and a Fury gets two that are used very frequently or all the time? Yeah, really balanced <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></font> </span></font><div></div>

[ParlMoebius]

<DIV><FONT size=1></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1></FONT></DIV> <DIV> <P><FONT size=2><SPAN>Thanks for the great information Caethre, I do appreciate others effort into garnering facts.<SPAN>  </SPAN>I'd love to see further research!</SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2><SPAN>I do however think it is quite possible to focus too hard on the details.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Numbers and math do not lie, but that does not mean the formulae are used accurately reflect a wholistic view on the problem.<SPAN>  </SPAN>I have not played a fury, so I cannot compare with any authority.  I would say that in terms of utility, SoW and invis would be great, and I would pick them over Oddysey and Soothe... but as a templar, if you dont use either of those, then you arent trying to.  I use both fairly regulary to fine result.</SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2><SPAN>The only thing I can say, after watching all the debate here, is this;  </SPAN><SPAN>As with any statistical analysis, the key is not with the results, but with the scenario they were aquired from.<SPAN>  </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN>Yes, the initial tests on solo ^^^ encounters seem entirely accurate.<SPAN>  </SPAN>And from the perspective of wanting to level up as a solo player, it is a good guideline of what to expect.<SPAN>  </SPAN>But I would be curious to see the two classes go up against the same mobs, with no nuking at all, where you are relying on only physical damage.<SPAN>  </SPAN>The fury undoubtedly still far outclasses the templar with damage... But pit them against a tougher mob now.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Say one that is much tougher, or even certain to kill you.<SPAN>  </SPAN>You are now going to be in a state of power conservation, every heal is vital, one may be the one you need to escape or land that last critical blow.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Who lasts longer?<SPAN>  </SPAN>Who is able to do more overall damage before they die?<SPAN>  </SPAN>Who is able to get the mob closer to death?<SPAN>  </SPAN>Now, rinse and dry.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Duplicate with a group, identical with a templar in one and a fury in the other... against easier mobs, then against group, then against tougher, then an epic say...  </SPAN><SPAN>Who heals more overall damage?<SPAN>  </SPAN>Who has better power conservation?<SPAN>  </SPAN>Who does better against group, who better against solo, who does better against high damaging mobs, etc.</SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2><SPAN>I'll say it again, f</SPAN><SPAN>or all you quoting numbers and 'facts'... numbers and math do not lie.<SPAN>  </SPAN>But rarely do they ever tell the whole story.<SPAN>  If you want to quote numbers, then methodically run through every scenario as a healer... from solo, to duo to small group to full to raid, from easy to equal to heroic to epic.  Then take all those numbers, come back, and you may just be a little closer to accurate.  Remember too that t</SPAN>here is some flexibility in this game with regards to how you play your character, though people often behave like there is not... like there is a "right" way to play your class.<SPAN>  </SPAN>There are certainly more effective ways than other to play with certain ends in mind, but there is no clear cut right way.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Much of it depends on the make up of the group and how you make your judgement calls and decisions while you are playing, and what your goals are.</SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2><SPAN>Well, Im not arguing one way or the other.<SPAN>  </SPAN>I dont care to anyhow.<SPAN>  </SPAN>At no point in my mind have I ever thought Templars were a solo class, or did I expect soloing to be fun or fast.<SPAN>  </SPAN>I knew that when I picked him.  </SPAN><SPAN>But of course, I am also someone who does not play to level, I play to enjoy.<SPAN>  </SPAN>And I enjoy playing my Templar <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV><p>Message Edited by ParlMoebius on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:12 PM</span>

[DarkxLordxBu]

<DIV>I don't know what you guys are smoking but a temp and fury are balnced just fine. Yes, furys nuke harder and solo better but a temp heals better then a fury hands down. I am not even gonna post any data on this becuase everyone knows it. Everytime i am in a grp and a temp joins everyone is like, "all right we got some pwnerer heals now".  Why the heck would you pick a healer to solo anyways? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FYI sow is worthless now anyways since everyone can get a carpet now in 2 hrs anyways.</DIV><p>Message Edited by DarkxLordxBurn on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:35 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span>So you believe Furies actually heal better with just basic heal lines?  Thus your defensive utility are needed to compensate?  Does anyone else agree with this?</span><hr></blockquote>Well at least I dont heal the group any better despite that defensive utility. My defensive utility gives about 1,2k health to mt and 653 to all group members. Then I have also the 8% proc that will block next incoming hit. The first in fact does not affect my healing, it just gives me one more hit to cast my heals. But since my heals are as slow as they are, if the target does not die soon after this, mt will. I have a 7s stun which is usable each 30 + 3s. So in all my defensive utility will block about 20 to 25% of incoming damage if I am lucky with the proc. As for the heals. On average templar single target reactive will heal 378 per tick, the spell can be cast once per 8s and for 5 ticks. On average this is 7,5 times per minute = 37,5 =  14k healed per minute on average. Fury HoTs will tick for 30 times per minute = 11k healed. Group reactive has 27 tics for 275 on average = 7,3k while group HoT is 24 tics = 6,5k. So reactives heal 21,3k per minute and HoT's heal 17,5k per minute. Now the difference comes with direct heals. Templar direct heals are 12,7k per minute on average while fury direct heals are 12,1k. This does not include BitF, this will give furies 8 x 694 = 5,5k  per minute more healing power, and it can be doubled when it really matters. Now this will bring templar total healing power per minute to 34k and fury total to 35,6k to 41,1k. Difference in healing power is from 1,6k to 7,1k. Now if we pick up a single mob, templars can reduce DPS by 25% by using the stun every time it is up. This means templars can deal with about the same damage as furies when the target does not resist and templar has time to stun. On the other hand, while the target is stunned, on average, 5 single target and 4 group reactive procs are wasted, this means templars will heal 3k less. So templars are at 37k and furies at 35,6 to 41k. Now templars still have Mark line, involuntary curate and GoC. Involuntary will heal 140 per minute on average (5% proc = 1 proc per minute) and Mark line will proc about 1,5 times and heal for 180 per minute. GoC will also proc 1,5 times per person, so on average I get 3 procs per minute healing for 1,1k. This brings templars up to 38,4k. So with all our defensive utility in use, furies can still heal more when it really matters. With a multiple encounter mob, templars reduce more of mob dps with mez and stun if the group plays along, those two combined will effectively reduce one targets DPS by about 75%. Also when group gets hit by AE, furies healing power is a lot more while templars really cannot get any more healing from themselves exept with GoC proc. So it is pure mathematics, even our defensive utility is not always enough to compensate. </span><hr></blockquote> I am going to approach this much like the way we do at work when we are presented with a report for a peer review.  The point is to look at what has been presented critically and determine if we agree with the method by which data was gathered and the conclusions drawn from said data. </span> <ul> <li><span> We note that the nature of Group Reactives and Group Regens are fundamentally different, lending to significant advantage in the use of a Group Reactive over the Regen in a limited aggro situation.  Group Reactives do not lose efficiency at the same rate as Regens when presented with less targets being damaged.  We note that there are other significant differences that can be debated between the two healing methods, such as Reactives scaling to increased damage, but not Regens, but the aforementioned is the most revelant to the issue being discussed.</span></li> <li>We note that even ignoring #1, Templar have higher healing per time unit until the Fury Ancient spell is discussed.  We propose that the sets of special ancient spells are balanced as a bonus to all classes outside of core skill lines and thus has no bearing on current discussion.  The Templar lines of Ancient spells are arguably just as valuable.</li> <li>We note the discrepancy in total power use of favors the Templar.</li> <li>We note that a Templar typically has more power at his/her disposal as well.</li> <li>We disagree with the assessment that stuns "waste" healing and thus its benefit should not be augmented.  We propose that such a spell's benefit is hard to measure as it depends entirely on the mob's DPS.  It also has the side benefit of allowing other debuffs/buffs to be casted, or for heals to "catch up."</li> <li>We note in AE encounters outside of raiding or high end encounters, it is rarely the case that AEs can actually kill any member of the group who does not currently have aggro.  Thus there is no inherent advantage in these cases to be able to "top off" members who are no in danger of dying. </li> </ul> <span></span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:40 PM</span>

[MadisonPark]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkxLordxBurn wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FYI sow is worthless now anyways since everyone can get a carpet now in 2 hrs anyways.</DIV> <P>  <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Not that its the point, but carpets cant be used in starting cities, or more importantly indoor dungeons.<BR>

[MadisonPark]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN> <UL> <LI></SPAN>We note the discrepancy in total power use of favors the Templar.</LI> <LI>We note that a Templar typically has more power at his/her disposal as well.</LI></UL> <P> </P><SPAN></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Sokolov on <SPAN class=date_text>12-21-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:40 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Most likely the reason for templars having no direct power buffs, where as (if i remember correctly) a fury as 3.</DIV>

[ParlMoebius]

<DIV>Very well laid out Sokolov. </DIV> <DIV>I still refrain from taking sides on which class is "better".</DIV> <DIV>I for one, generally give SOE and the developers of the game more credit than many people do.  Regardless of what some people do think, there are usually valid reasons for the way many things are.  The trick is finding those reasons, and being able to appreciate them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That being said, nobody's perfect, and sometimes, things do need to be changed.  I'm just not </DIV>

[ParlMoebius]

<DIV>My browsers gone wacky!!!</DIV><p>Message Edited by ParlMoebius on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:52 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>MadisonPark wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Sokolov wrote: <div></div><span> <ul> <li>We note the discrepancy in total power use of favors the Templar.</li> <li>We note that a Templar typically has more power at his/her disposal as well.</li></ul> <span></span> <div></div> <p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">12-21-2005</span> <span class="time_text">01:40 PM</span> </p><hr> </span></blockquote> <div>Most likely the reason for templars having no direct power buffs, where as (if i remember correctly) a fury as 3.</div><hr></blockquote>Thanks for pointing that out.  Just glanced at the spells.  Looks like there's the Int + power line.  Which uses a Conc slot.  Spirit of the Bat (level 35Bloodlines spell) which is a small in-combat power regen, and a group int/wis buff.  I might've missed something.</span><div></div>

[MadisonPark]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MadisonPark wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN> <UL> <LI>We note the discrepancy in total power use of favors the Templar.</LI> <LI>We note that a Templar typically has more power at his/her disposal as well.</LI></UL> <P> </P><SPAN></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Sokolov on <SPAN class=date_text>12-21-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:40 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Most likely the reason for templars having no direct power buffs, where as (if i remember correctly) a fury as 3.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for pointing that out.  Just glanced at the spells.  Looks like there's the Int + power line.  Which uses a Conc slot.  Spirit of the Bat (level 35Bloodlines spell) which is a small in-combat power regen, and a group int/wis buff.  I might've missed something.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>For the record, i was merely point out a fact, not arguing.

[Timaarit]

Sokolov, yes, both templar and a fury can trivially heal most situations. This is where defensive buffs are not needed but offensive buffs are useful. When defensive buffs are needed, furies are compensated with better healing. As for reactives scaling, they scale for 2 or 3s spike damage that is due to multiple hits. They dont scale to spike damage that is from one or two big hits, with these, HoT's are better. As for better scaling, in the end, HoT's will heal only 20% less. I have never been in a situation where mt has stopped taking that spike damage after my reactives are down, I always need to resort to my direct heals in these situations just like a fury needs to. So while in the beginning templars can keep mt health at higher level, in the end, furies will get it back to full faster. <div></div>

[kenji]

i miss the defiler's self hp regen, and the way they can dot themselves for more power.<BR> <DIV>what i feel is, defiler doesnt have worse defensive type buffs than templar, but way more useful debuffs.<BR>similar HP buffs (~200 diff) , abit worse AC buffs (~100 diff), wraith form (self regen), Canny (power regen, hurt self), reactive ward, regening ward.<BR>debuffs..forget it, templar got AC / Divine, only, when Defiler got alot.</DIV> <DIV>DPS / Heal : Same.<BR>balance <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Caethre]

<P>OOC.</P> <P>I notice my data presentation thread has gone somewhat seriously off-topic. Nevermind, I will continue to post data here.</P> <P>I took Felishanna to Pillars of Flame tonight, and parsed her fighting yellow con mobs. The three target types (parsed and summed seperately) were:- Petulant Crocuta (single mob encounters, level 54-55), Desert Lunatic/Prophet (single mob encounter, level 54-55) and Desert Lunatic/Prophet (2-3 mob encounters, level 56-57). I have already correlated all the data, and I will put it on my guild board as a series of 3 half-posts at some time before I sleep or early tomorrow evening, but it is 1am my local time, and so I will have to measure Annaelisa's damage on the same mobs tomorrow evening, if I am not otherwise distracted.</P> <P>Felishanna [54 Templar] ... yes, seems I got a level at the end of this ...<BR>Annaelisa [53 Fury]</P> <P> </P>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR>Sokolov, yes, both templar and a fury can trivially heal most situations. This is where defensive buffs are not needed but offensive buffs are useful. When defensive buffs are needed, furies are compensated with better healing. <BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>On the contrary, when defensive buffs are needed, a templar has a tank that has about 15% more hit points, only has to heal for 72% of the damage (because of stun and benediction), and has a basic specialty/direct heal line-up that heals 90% of everything a fury has to offer for 80% of the power cost, even if lotto heals are neglected.  This looks like a clear templar advantage.</P> <P>Alephin<BR></P>

[Chog]

<P>Caethre, glad to see you got a parser and started to compare the 2 classes.  Was wondering if you could run a group of fights without any buffs on either healer, this will allow people to compare how much the offensive buffs help the Fury in the DPS department.  While I understand you want to show everybody that Fury DPS is more then Templar DPS, I beleive we all know this already, the question is how much of the DPS is from the buffs and how much is from the direct damage spells.</P>

[Nelin]

<DIV>I know this topic is Templar vs Fury, but I wanted to know how much a difference is inquisitor to templar.</DIV>

[kenji]

<DIV> <P>On the contrary, when defensive buffs are needed, a templar has a tank that has about 15% more hit points, only has to heal for 72% of the damage (because of stun and benediction), and has a basic specialty/direct heal line-up that heals 90% of everything a fury has to offer for 80% of the power cost, even if lotto heals are neglected.  This looks like a clear templar advantage.</P> <P>Alephin<BR><BR>the tank has 1000 less hit points (compare to temp), but group has 200 more resist overall and actual more power for the healer (fury grp wis/int +65, pure power buff) . Druid regen has more healing power than Cleric reactive (6 : 5).  vs AoE dmg,  grp regen work better than grp reactive. not to mention 2 grp heal vs 1. The wonder of BiTF that can do 9+ ratio direct heal which doesnt share timer. With the help of spirit of the bat (10 power regen per tick), and having imbued grp regen,not really a difference.<BR><BR>Kenji.</P> <P> </P></DIV>

[kenji]

Nelinia, if u want , u can make both templar and inquisitor. and do the work =)

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Alephin wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:Sokolov, yes, both templar and a fury can trivially heal most situations. This is where defensive buffs are not needed but offensive buffs are useful. When defensive buffs are needed, furies are compensated with better healing. <hr> </blockquote> <p>On the contrary, when defensive buffs are needed, a templar has a tank that has about 15% more hit points, only has to heal for 72% of the damage (because of stun and benediction), and has a basic specialty/direct heal line-up that heals 90% of everything a fury has to offer for 80% of the power cost, even if lotto heals are neglected.  This looks like a clear templar advantage.</p> <p>Alephin</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Heh, you seem to have missed a clear english text. That difference in what needs to be healed is really necessary since furies have better healing power. Yes, at lvl 55 furies really can heal 20% more than templars. So my point is proven, templar defensive utility is needed to enable templars to be as good healers as furies, it is not compensation for fury offensive utility. Thus templar DPS needs to be multiplied by 2,5 to 3 in order to make things balanced (yes, it is no longer 2 since I didn't realize the healing gap was that big, I though templar and fyry were balanced). Also from yesterday, I was sole healer in a guild group. In the fights I actually needed to heal, I rarely had time to use my stun nor Mark or involuntary lines. On the bright side, Reverence (adept III, 210% health from power) was once again useful and I think on average I got about 3k healing from it per minute (cost me 520 power per minute to keep it up though, so not a good ratio, but it did help me heal). So this brings me to another point. Furies can do healing easier than templars. They have just 5 heals in use while templars really have to use all our heals and utility to get even close to the same result.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Nelinia wrote:<div>I know this topic is Templar vs Fury, but I wanted to know how much a difference is inquisitor to templar.</div><hr></blockquote>Healing or DPS? Inquisitors have more DPS and about the same healing power. In optimal and lucky situations templars can heal more with the lotto heals.</span><div></div>

[kenji]

bah, tim...Inquisitor has Convert, it heals extra ~200 everytime the inquisitor cast a heal =P

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>kenjiso wrote:bah, tim...Inquisitor has Convert, it heals extra ~200 everytime the inquisitor cast a heal =P <div></div><hr></blockquote>I know, they heal easier. Templars still have GoC and fate lines as well as the now improved Reverence. So we have slightly more healing potential that Inquisitors. But the main thing is that our basic heals are below average due to our utility. I don't fury basic DPS being lower than priest average because of their utility. So templars are punished for needing to cast more spells to get to same result as furies. Same applies to templar vs. inquisitor, inquisitors have less healing spells but they still are near equal in healing power.</span><div></div>

[kenji]

5% chance to heal 300 and 100% chance to heal 200 cant say really better. and their proc heal is 10% ~130 power heal to self... hardly worse than templar. =)

[Zabumt]

<DIV>Some of the things that parsers don't catch:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Mit Debuff</DIV> <DIV>Stun Effects (how much damage is prevented by our stuns?)</DIV> <DIV>Templar Mez (aka sign line)</DIV> <DIV>Divine Debuff (Didn't think this was a big deal until a Paladin in my guild noted today that he was getting really high divine hits on epic mobs)</DIV> <DIV>Defensive Buffs</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I was in Poets the other night for the first time.  We went in with another Templar and I.  Yes, I know, crappy stacking but they insisted everything would be okay.  Later on, a ranger went through a door that nobody was prepared to go through.  The ranger went through and died.  The other Templar and I waited for the door (the rest of the group was stuck behind yet another door) we went through when it was opened and all holy hell was unleashed upon us when we got to the other side.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We had 4 mobs on us to start with.  All 60+ heroics.  She mezzed a mob, I mezzed another.  So we were down to 2 mobs.  I stun one.  She stuns the other.  She then proceeds to combat rez the ranger.  Ranger stands back a few to regen some power and me and the other Templar just keep ourselves healed with level 60+ mobs beating on us.  Ranger gets some power and we proceed to take down all the aggro and a bit more before the rest of the group gets to us.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>While this isn't your typical encounter it provides some insight to why Templars are so powerful. We can take a few hits, keep ourselves healed and make things work in a situation where I don't think other healers could do the same job.  Did we dps?  Nope.  Did we keep from wiping?  Absolutely with a big [Removed for Content] gold star!  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Timaarit]

Zab, with other healers, they might not have gone through that door like you did. Thus they wouldn't have been in any danger to begin with. Also in my posting, I did take that stun into account. I also took the mez into account. They can help us to be in even ground with druids when it comes to keep group alive. But the fact remains, we need to use the stun and the mez to reduce mob DPS to a level we can heal, druids can heal that damage without the mez and stun. Thus druids heal easier and can spend time nuking while we are casting all our spells to match the heals. <div></div>

[Dalchar]

I wouldn't say I have tons of time to cast nukes etc, small heals make for lots of spam.  Namely if in a 10s timeframe (regen cycle) takes 2s to cast regen, 2s for each DH and clicking (Due to human intervention, not like everything's going to always be queued, esp with fast casts) 6/10s are already used up, if another heal is required BITF, 8s are gone.  Solo healer in poet's... I very rarely nuke,  Trivial encounters where generally my tank is geared extremely nicely to boot, I could drop a regen and blast away.  Preventing the need to heal  > having to heal.  As a fury on difficult stuff, I fight to keep up.  There's no bigger hp buffer, no debuffs, there's no stuns, there's no pacifies/mez, it's heal or die.  I may have a bigger power pool to toss heals, but that power doesn't mean much of anything if fight is over before the last 600 extra power I have is left unused or you didn't have an opportunity to get the heals in.  Just because you have more healing potential directly doesn't mean it's the best route.  Groups notice the difference between templars and furies when they heal, in my experience, most still prefer templar even though any priest will generally do. <div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Dalcharis wrote:I wouldn't say I have tons of time to cast nukes etc, small heals make for lots of spam.  Namely if in a 10s timeframe (regen cycle) takes 2s to cast regen, 2s for each DH and clicking (Due to human intervention, not like everything's going to always be queued, esp with fast casts) 6/10s are already used up, if another heal is required BITF, 8s are gone.  Solo healer in poet's... I very rarely nuke,  Trivial encounters where generally my tank is geared extremely nicely to boot, I could drop a regen and blast away.  Preventing the need to heal  > having to heal.  As a fury on difficult stuff, I fight to keep up.  There's no bigger hp buffer, no debuffs,<i> there's no stuns, there's no pacifies/mez</i>, it's heal or die.  I may have a bigger power pool to toss heals, but that power doesn't mean much of anything if fight is over before the last 600 extra power I have is left unused or you didn't have an opportunity to get the heals in.  Just because you have more healing potential directly doesn't mean it's the best route.  Groups notice the difference between templars and furies when they heal, in my experience, most still prefer templar even though any priest will generally do. <div></div><hr></blockquote>In a heal or die situation, a templar really cannot start mezzing nor stunning. Also these situations mean the we are fighting mobs that will most likely resist the stun or mez. So trying to use these can mean a wipe. I would gladly trade these spells for equivalent amount of heals (= 7000 points healed per minute). So lets trade BitF for these mezzes and stuns? btw. in 10 seconds I can cast both reactives and my biggest heal. As it is, the first will heal damage taken after 2s and the second after 5s combat. The big heal is needed to heal whatever was taken before I got my reactives up. That was the full 10s. In a hard fight my reactive will be consumed by this time and I can recast my single target reactive and use my lesser heal. Then I can cast one of my proc heals. 17s is now gone and group reactive is down for 3 more seconds as is single target reactive. they are both castable at the same time. So I can use one of my nukes and do 400 damage or I can use the mitigation debuff. 20s in battle and both my reactives are up, rinse and repeat. So in a hard fight, I cannot even fully utilize my heals nor my utility. Which in fact makes things even worse from templars point of view. My calculation earlier was based on assumption that all heals can be used immediately and everything can be cast as soon as they are up. But the long cast times of our heals mean that something is always wasted. Now I have no doubt that this is the case with furies also, but due to shorter casting, the effect is smaller.</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

I love how the contention is basically over one level 55 spell. <div></div>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:Zab, with other healers, they might not have gone through that door like you did. Thus they wouldn't have been in any danger to begin with. Also in my posting, I did take that stun into account. I also took the mez into account. They can help us to be in even ground with druids when it comes to keep group alive. But the fact remains, we need to use the stun and the mez to reduce mob DPS to a level we can heal, druids can heal that damage without the mez and stun. Thus druids heal easier and can spend time nuking while we are casting all our spells to match the heals. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Yes, because difficult situations occur because of which healers are in your group *rolls eyes* I still disagree with your second point.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR>Zab, with other healers, they might not have gone through that door like you did. Thus they wouldn't have been in any danger to begin with.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Templars go where other priests fear to tread.  :smileywink:<BR></P>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR>I love how the contention is basically over one level 55 spell.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I've been reading the same thing...and was amused.  It's a discussion about parsing a 53 Fury compared to a 53 Templar, specifically about DPS - an article that I wasn't aware was in contention.  Since day one, I believe Templar parses have been showing around 100 DPS (give or take) in Tier VI.  These latest parses simply confirm earlier findings (which were curiously attacked when other Templars performed similar tests).  I note that no one's here trying to reaffirm earlier claims made regarding Furies pulling out 500, 800, or even 1000+ DPS.  </P> <P>Then again, the discussion is once again centered around DPS and not healing per second.  It's based around soloing, and not group roles. I wasn't aware that  this was a topic of contention.  I can't recall anyone stating Templars solo as well as Furies.  I do recall developers stating that inequities in soloing speeds and effeciencies were intended design, however.</P> <P>Furies solo better.  They always have.  This is a year old topic.  Even in Beta this was accepted truth.  Furies have always soloed better.  It's not even a question.  </P> <P>However, where the parses really start to get interesting are in group situations - where the game was balanced.  The numbers get really interesting when you start actually parsing out group fights and regarding HPS between priests.  It's not always an apple to apple comparison, but even with the numbers we can gather, it's suprising to say the least to see Templars heads and tails above the rest at either healing more in less time over time; or requiring less healing to begin with.  Obviously situations still exist where we're not the pinnacle of healing, but most of the time in most situations, we're better and more efficient at healing - you know, that primary priest role - than any other priest I've been able to test against.</P> <P>I do appreciate the parses from someone who once berated me for counting on them.  It's nice to see another number crunching convert in the ranks.  Welcome aboard, Caethre.</P> <P><EM>*The young human casts a Blessing of Marr and greets the fellow Truthseeker accordingly.*</EM></P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>On the contrary, when defensive buffs are needed, a templar has a tank that has about 15% more hit points, only has to heal for 72% of the damage (because of stun and benediction), and has a basic specialty/direct heal line-up that heals 90% of everything a fury has to offer for 80% of the power cost, even if lotto heals are neglected.  This looks like a clear templar advantage.</P> <P>Alephin<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Heh, you seem to have missed a clear english text. That difference in what needs to be healed is really necessary since furies have better healing power. Yes, at lvl 55 furies really can heal 20% more than templars.<BR><BR>So my point is proven, templar defensive utility is needed to enable templars to be as good healers as furies, it is not compensation for fury offensive utility. Thus templar DPS needs to be multiplied by 2,5 to 3 in order to make things balanced (yes, it is no longer 2 since I didn't realize the healing gap was that big, I though templar and fyry were balanced).<BR><BR>Also from yesterday, I was sole healer in a guild group. In the fights I actually needed to heal, I rarely had time to use my stun nor Mark or involuntary lines. On the bright side, Reverence (adept III, 210% health from power) was once again useful and I think on average I got about 3k healing from it per minute (cost me 520 power per minute to keep it up though, so not a good ratio, but it did help me heal).<BR><BR>So this brings me to another point. Furies can do healing easier than templars. They have just 5 heals in use while templars really have to use all our heals and utility to get even close to the same result.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>You haven't proven anything other than that if it were humanly (and game-mechanically) possible for a fury to spam every single heal they have back-to-back over one minute, that they might heal 20% more than templars if they are lucky and the BitF lands every time when the tank is orange, albeit by using 20% more power to do it.  Your illustration was ridiculous.  Why don't you put together some real casting sequences and see how the two classes compare.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The bottom line is that a well-played templar doesn't typically have to spam heal on appropriate content.  In fact, they can't because their timers are too long.  Stuns more than make up the difference.  If you don't have time to cast stun when fighting a single non-epic target, you aren't doing something right.  It's as simple as that.  You may not like that play style, but it is effective, and I'll take it over the button-mashing frenzy of fury healing in an instant.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One thing is certain.  You sure toss around the word prove a lot.  Apparently your idea of "proof" is much less rigorous than the rest of the world's.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Alephin</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:I love how the contention is basically over one level 55 spell. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Well  without that particular spell, fury healing would be the same as templar healing <span>:smileywink:</span>. Then templar defensive utility would mean that overall we would be better healers than the ones with highest DPS.</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:I love how the contention is basically over one level 55 spell. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Well  without that particular spell, fury healing would be the same as templar healing <span>:smileywink:</span>. Then templar defensive utility would mean that overall we would be better healers than the ones with highest DPS.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>That depends on how you choose to view that spell.  If you view it as "a heal templars don't get," sure.  But let us not forget that Templars also get a spell at that level.  It doesn't do the same thing, but is arguably just as useful.  And there, I believe, it is balanced.  It would be pretty boring if every priest class got similiar Ancient spells =/ OH, plus - Reverence prevents uncurable stuns like Cazel's for a fixed duration, but the Defiler version, which can be casted while stunned/stifled, cannot cure the same effects, not to mention it only works once every 2 minutes.  Talk about imbalance <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>12-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:08 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Alephin wrote:<div></div> <div>You haven't proven anything other than that if it were humanly (and game-mechanically) possible for a fury to spam every single heal they have back-to-back over one minute, that they might heal 20% more than templars if they are lucky and the BitF lands every time when the tank is orange, albeit by using 20% more power to do it.  Your illustration was ridiculous.  Why don't you put together some real casting sequences and see how the two classes compare.</div><hr></blockquote>In case you missed it (which you did since you wrote that), same assumption was made for templars. You also missed the part where templars have to cast more spells to heal and this one makes the situation even worse for templars. There is no way either class can get to that hypothetical healing, but furies will get closer since they have less heals to cast for it. And as for that actual casting, I did. Could have been in another thread. Templar timers mean we cannot use our heals effectively.</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

I thought Furies had faster but smaller heals, meaning more casts? <div></div>

[Timaarit]

Also shorter cast times = less time spent casting. <div></div>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Alephin wrote:<BR> <BR> <DIV>You haven't proven anything other than that if it were humanly (and game-mechanically) possible for a fury to spam every single heal they have back-to-back over one minute, that they might heal 20% more than templars if they are lucky and the BitF lands every time when the tank is orange, albeit by using 20% more power to do it.  Your illustration was ridiculous.  Why don't you put together some real casting sequences and see how the two classes compare.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>In case you missed it (which you did since you wrote that), same assumption was made for templars. You also missed the part where templars have to cast more spells to heal and this one makes the situation even worse for templars. There is no way either class can get to that hypothetical healing, but furies will get closer since they have less heals to cast for it.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Of course you used the same assumption with templars.  That just means that you used a lousy assumption twice, and the margin for error in your little thought experiment increased further.  Do the job right, or don't do it at all.  </P> <P>Templars will actually cast fewer spells in that time than furies, not more.  All fury spells have faster or identical recasts to the templar counterparts, and furies also have to fit in BitF.  How they all fit back-to-back can only be decided by setting up a sequence, since there is probably an optimum order.  Keep in mind that if they don't use BitF when tank is orange, they've blown a lot of power for a half-heal, so this is a spelll that a fury is probably not likely to queue up for casting. </P> <P>Since this is your axe to grind, I suggest you do the sequence and then get back to us.  This would go a lot further toward supporting your case than the sophomoric attempts you've posted to this point.  Until then, please don't waste my time with unsupported declarations of proof based on pointless hypotheticals that have little relation to the actual game we are all playing.</P> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <HR> <P> And as for that actual casting, I did. Could have been in another thread. Templar timers mean we cannot use our heals effectively.<BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR> </P> <P>Templar timers may mean that <EM>you</EM> can't heal effectively, but that could be because you apparently don't have time to use stun and other tools.</P> <P>Alephin</P>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span>You also missed the part where templars have to cast more spells to heal and this one makes the situation even worse for templars. </span>Also shorter cast times = less time spent casting. <div></div><hr></blockquote> So Furies cast faster and spend less time casting but still manages to heal the same amount as a Templar who has to cast more spells than the Fury? The only way this makes sense here would then be that Fury spells heal for more, with lower cast times.</span><div></div>

[Caethre]

<P>OOC.</P> <P>This thread was meant to be a data delivery thread, and for discussion of the data, regarding Templar vds Fury DPS. There are many other threads discussing healing, and they are best kept to their own threads. However, the following post is such an extreme example of continued and potentially dangerous fallacy that I simply must point out where the poster is wrong, and where he is ignoring the salient points YET AGAIN.<BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Kendricke wrote: <P>It's a discussion about parsing a 53 Fury compared to a 53 Templar, specifically about DPS - an article that I wasn't aware was in contention.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>It isn't? I have seen a number of posters wanting comparative DPS data over the past months. I believed even you claimed the difference was "not significant" or "not important" on a number of occasions. This thread was to answer, once and for all, the questions about DPS. It is of course measured for the solo setting, since that is the easy way to measure it.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>It does absolutely prove what you (now) say you already knew - that Fury DPS is between 2 and 3 times as much as that of Templars. Let me stress that. It is not 10% better or 30% better, it is between 100% and 200% better, for normal mobs. It might be even more than that for some multiple-mob encounters.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Now we have accepted that, we can move on, and not keep coming back to "but what is the difference in DPS? Do you have any data for that?".</FONT></P> <P>I do recall developers stating that inequities in soloing speeds and effeciencies were intended design, however.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Yes, developer comment has said that there was never balance made on soloing alone, you have wheeled that old chestnut out several times already. However, DPS is not just about soloing, is it? DPS matters in groups as well, for every character of every class. DPS is part of balance, and a very major and vital part of combat. Ignoring it is sticking ones head in the sand. </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>As you keep being told and as you keep ignoring, most of us play in normal groups against normal content, and we spend some of our power providing DPS because we simply do not need to heal all the time - that is the game design. This makes us just WEAKER than Furies, no question about it, if when contributing DPS, we only give groups 1/3 to 1/2 the contribution. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Which is why pickup groups are starting taking Furies over Templars (reported already several times on this board). Which is why people like me feel like XP leeches in groups if we play our Templars (at least five, if not ten or fifteen posters have seperately reported this feeling, if not more). And which is why people like me have felt FORCED to re-roll in the face of such a marked imbalance (who knows how many have done this). You might keep ignoring this message, but it does not stop it being true!</FONT></P> <P>Furies solo better.  They always have.  This is a year old topic.  Even in Beta this was accepted truth.  Furies have always soloed better.  It's not even a question. </P><FONT color=#ffff00> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>And again you say "but you didn't mention that a year ago", implying the point is irrelevant now. </FONT>And once AGAIN you ignore the answer to why it is absolutely relevant, the answer you have been given over and over to this point already.</P> <P>Yes, Furies give better DPS - MUCH MUCH better. Up to 200% better, as proven above.</P> <P>However, one year ago, Furies also healed MUCH MUCH worse than Templars as well, a fact you have acknowledged in other posts but never in answer to this point. LU13 abolished the healing disparity leaving the DPS disparity, thereby abolishing the balance and creating a huge imbalance.</P> <P>Are you going to keep blinking as you read past that answer? Because that *is* the reason why so many Templars were content to have lower DPS back then (when we had far better healing) and are not content with having far lower DPS now (when we have basically equal healing).</P> <P><FONT color=#ffffcc>numbers get really interesting when you start actually parsing out group fights and regarding HPS between priests.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>That is the other side of the coin. I have not attempted to go in that direction .. yet. I do not have regular groupmates, it may not be possible for me, but I *might* try at some point. However, nothing stops others from doing such comparisons.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>The limited data that has been presented so far on these forums that I have read has backed up what the developers are telling us is their intention - all priests will heal equally. The mathematical analysis carried out by Timaarit and others on long threads about healing (not DPS) have infact suggested that Furies may even have superior healing in some settings. However, what is very clear, is that the healing is certainly no more than a few percent different between the classes either way, a fact that the Developers have clearly and repeatedly stated is their intention. There is no "huge healing advantage" for Templars, and certainly nothing matching the massive (up to) 200% advantage in DPS that Furies have over Templars.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffcc> ... it's suprising to say the least to see Templars heads and tails above the rest at either healing more in less time over time; or requiring less healing to begin with. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I simply do not believe you. Every shred of evidence I have seen contradicts what you are saying here. Ignoring <STRONG>your</STRONG> post with claims of super-uber-high-end specially constructed groups of 4 scouts fighting orange heroics and other such extreme non-representative cases, with numbers plucked out of the air, nothing I have seen supports your claims. By contrast, there have been numerous detailed threads on these boards, with analytical posts from Timaarit and others, showing how healing power is more or less equal between certain priest classes, and that in some cases, Furies do better than Templars, in fact.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Your points fly in the face of both logic, detailed argument, and my own experience playing both classes, where I have so far observed (admittedly so far with not a great deal of experience on Anna) the healing power to be about the same (no, not parsed, just using my experience to assess it so far, which I value more than your random numbers, sorry).</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Furthermore, the devs have been very specific on this subject. It is their intention, that the priest classes provide equal healing power. When they believed it was still not true after LU13, they rolled out LU15 to ensure it was, in their view.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Who are we to believe? Kendricke? Or our own experience, the devs, and logical analysis all rolled into one? I know what I believe, and it is not your invented numbers.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>So, keep on posting unsubstantiated fallacy about Templars being FAR SUPERIOR healers to other priest classes. The rest of us know better. And that is why, many of the rest of us will continue feeding back our observations and unhappiness with the huge imbalance between Furiy and Templar classes, until it is fixed.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffcc>Obviously situations still exist where we're not the pinnacle of healing, but most of the time in most situations, we're better and more efficient at healing - you know, that primary priest role - than any other priest I've been able to test against.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>If we really were FAR BETTER healers than other priests, and that this applied in all groups and for all playstyles (like it used to apply before LU13),  this whole debate would not be here.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>The fact is, your claim is palpably FALSE. The time will come, if I can gather the people I need to test this with my two characters, when I believe I will prove this. A duo or trio should certainly be doable at some point.</FONT></P> <P></P></FONT> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>All this said, this thread is not the right place for all this discussion.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I will carry out the parses for Anna tonight in Pillars of Flame, and then post all the results later if I have time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Felishanna / Annaelisa</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Caethre on <span class=date_text>12-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:27 PM</span>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P>On the contrary, when defensive buffs are needed, a templar has a tank that has about 15% more hit points, only has to heal for 72% of the damage (because of stun and benediction), and has a basic specialty/direct heal line-up that heals 90% of everything a fury has to offer for 80% of the power cost, even if lotto heals are neglected.  This looks like a clear templar advantage.</P> <P>Alephin<BR><BR>the tank has 1000 less hit points (compare to temp), but group has 200 more resist overall and actual more power for the healer (fury grp wis/int +65, pure power buff) . Druid regen has more healing power than Cleric reactive (6 : 5).  vs AoE dmg,  grp regen work better than grp reactive. not to mention 2 grp heal vs 1. The wonder of BiTF that can do 9+ ratio direct heal which doesnt share timer. With the help of spirit of the bat (10 power regen per tick), and having imbued grp regen,not really a difference.<BR><BR>Kenji.</P> <P> </P></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Yes, a fury can have some more power, but I don't think it makes up for the high power cost of their reliance on small direct heals in burst situations, nor does it make up for the necessity of them physically casting lots and lots of spells, opening up lots of fizzle chances and potential mistakes in sequencing and queuing.  Maybe the fury should give me their power buff and play back-up healer if we are together (unless I'm chain pulling or crowd controlling a bunch).  Their nukes are better, and my healing is more efficient.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You won't find me arguing that a druid doesn't shine when there are lots of AOEs.  I just don't find myself in heavy AoE situations that much in day-to-day battles, though, and when I have, I've managed with the group magic ward that templars get.  Not as good, no, but it is helpful if you use it.  This type of scenario is a definite druid strong point, because that group HoT can heal a <EM>lot</EM> of damage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And don't forget to add in your comparison that the templar group reactive is much more effective an efficient than the druid HoT at healing a single target.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Alephin</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Caethre wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Kendricke wrote: <p>It's a discussion about parsing a 53 Fury compared to a 53 Templar, specifically about DPS - an article that I wasn't aware was in contention.</p> <p><font color="#ffff00">It isn't? I have seen a number of posters wanting comparative DPS data over the past months. I believed even you claimed the difference was "not significant" or "not important" on a number of occasions. This thread was to answer, once and for all, the questions about DPS. It is of course measured for the solo setting, since that is the easy way to measure it.</font></p></blockquote><hr></blockquote> You misread.  He is actually agreeing with you that this thread is about DPS, and that the discussion of the level 55 Ancient Fury heal being the point of contention does not relate to the DPS discussion.</span><div></div>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: <P>It's a discussion about parsing a 53 Fury compared to a 53 Templar, specifically about DPS - an article that I wasn't aware was in contention.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>It isn't? I have seen a number of posters wanting comparative DPS data over the past months. I believed even you claimed the difference was "not significant" or "not important" on a number of occasions. This thread was to answer, once and for all, the questions about DPS. It is of course measured for the solo setting, since that is the easy way to measure it.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You misread.  He is actually agreeing with you that this thread is about DPS, and that the discussion of the level 55 Ancient Fury heal being the point of contention does not relate to the DPS discussion.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Alas, internet forums are living documents, and the only way to truly keep a thread on topic is to lock out every poster other than yourself.  I do appreciate Caethre's work.  I can't say I'm surprised by the results, but they are nice to see quantified.  I just don't think that giving defensive priests more dps is the best way to fix this game.  But I doubt that Caethre and I will ever agree on that.  </P> <P>Alephin</P> <P> </P>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Caethre wrote: <blockquote><font color="#ffffcc"> ... it's suprising to say the least to see Templars heads and tails above the rest at either healing more in less time over time; or requiring less healing to begin with. </font><font color="#ffff00"> <p><font color="#ffff00">I simply do not believe you. Every shred of evidence I have seen contradicts what you are saying here. Ignoring <strong>your</strong> post with claims of super-uber-high-end specially constructed groups of 4 scouts fighting orange heroics and other such extreme non-representative cases, with numbers plucked out of the air, nothing I have seen supports your claims. By contrast, there have been numerous detailed threads on these boards, with analytical posts from Timaarit and others, showing how healing power is more or less equal between certain priest classes, and that in some cases, Furies do better than Templars, in fact.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Your points fly in the face of both logic, detailed argument, and my own experience playing both classes, where I have so far observed (admittedly so far with not a great deal of experience on Anna) the healing power to be about the same (no, not parsed, just using my experience to assess it so far, which I value more than your random numbers, sorry).</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Furthermore, the devs have been very specific on this subject. It is their intention, that the priest classes provide equal healing power. When they believed it was still not true after LU13, they rolled out LU15 to ensure it was, in their view.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Who are we to believe? Kendricke? Or our own experience, the devs, and logical analysis all rolled into one? I know what I believe, and it is not your invented numbers.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">So, keep on posting unsubstantiated fallacy about Templars being FAR SUPERIOR healers to other priest classes. The rest of us know better. And that is why, many of the rest of us will continue feeding back our observations and unhappiness with the huge imbalance between Furiy and Templar classes, until it is fixed.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffffcc">Obviously situations still exist where we're not the pinnacle of healing, but most of the time in most situations, we're better and more efficient at healing - you know, that primary priest role - than any other priest I've been able to test against.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">If we really were FAR BETTER healers than other priests, and that this applied in all groups and for all playstyles (like it used to apply before LU13),  this whole debate would not be here.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">The fact is, your claim is palpably FALSE. The time will come, if I can gather the people I need to test this with my two characters, when I believe I will prove this. A duo or trio should certainly be doable at some point.</font></p> </font> <hr> </blockquote> <div>All this said, this thread is not the right place for all this discussion.</div> <div> </div> <div>I will carry out the parses for Anna tonight in Pillars of Flame, and then post all the results later if I have time.</div> <div> </div> <div>Felishanna / Annaelisa</div> <div> </div><p>Message Edited by Caethre on <span class="date_text">12-22-2005</span> <span class="time_text">04:27 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>I do not believe you either.  My evidence suggests that Templars ARE superior healers in many situations as long as the encounter has not been trivialized. </span><font color="#ffffff"><span>As a healer, my healing is FAR more important than the DPS I can do.  As such, I will sacrifice LARGE amounts of DPS for SMALL amounts of healing.</span></font> <span> Thus I can make the same statement as you:  Who are we to believe?  Caethre?  Or our own experiences, the devs, and logical analysis rolled into one? So keep making the claim that a Templar's defensive advantage is worth less than a Fury's offensive advantage.  The rest of us know better. As for pre-LU13... Templars were clear and away the king of the healers.  Shamans were broken, Wardens couldn't keep up with damage.  Of course Templars wouldn't complain then =P  Talk about being obvious! </span><font color="#ffffff"><span></span></font> <div></div>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Alephin wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Sokolov wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> Caethre wrote: <div></div> <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Kendricke wrote: <p>It's a discussion about parsing a 53 Fury compared to a 53 Templar, specifically about DPS - an article that I wasn't aware was in contention.</p> <p><font color="#ffff00">It isn't? I have seen a number of posters wanting comparative DPS data over the past months. I believed even you claimed the difference was "not significant" or "not important" on a number of occasions. This thread was to answer, once and for all, the questions about DPS. It is of course measured for the solo setting, since that is the easy way to measure it.</font></p></blockquote> <hr> </blockquote>You misread.  He is actually agreeing with you that this thread is about DPS, and that the discussion of the level 55 Ancient Fury heal being the point of contention does not relate to the DPS discussion.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Alas, internet forums are living documents, and the only way to truly keep a thread on topic is to lock out every poster other than yourself.  I do appreciate Caethre's work.  I can't say I'm surprised by the results, but they are nice to see quantified.  I just don't think that giving defensive priests more dps is the best way to fix this game.  But I doubt that Caethre and I will ever agree on that.  </p> <p>Alephin</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>I am still of the opinion that priest classes are relatively balanced, and Furies may have too much DPS and should be adjusted down.  But most people suffer from a combination of nerfphobia and greed - leading to not wanting to nerf anything while only wanting to see their own class get more stuff.</span><div></div>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <P>I am still of the opinion that priest classes are relatively balanced, and Furies may have too much DPS and should be adjusted down.  But most people suffer from a combination of nerfphobia and greed - leading to not wanting to nerf anything while only wanting to see their own class get more stuff.<BR></SPAN><BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR></P> <DIV>From reading your posts, I expect we have similar views about this.  I think there is too great a discrepancy between named and regular heroic encounter difficulties.  For the nameds to be doable, the heroics are trivial.  If encounters were tougher, in general, defensive priests would have more to do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Dps is only important for a priest in the solo game.  Frankly, a soloing priest should be doing things other than killing monsters by themselves, but SOE has chosen not to make solo quests require anything other than doing damage and running around, so templars and other low damage classes are doing the same things as other classes who are much better designed for that sort of thing.  Shame on Sony for a lack of originality, but we healers are stuck with it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Alephin</DIV>

[jpbaeten]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <P>OOC.</P> <P>Well, that's 4 comparisons done.</P> <P>Green Heroics: Felishanna 124 DPS Annaelisa 244 DPS<BR>Blue-con Orcs: Felishanna 113 DPS Annaelisa 278 DPS<BR>Even Scorpions: Felishanna 131 DPS Annaelisa 322 DPS<BR>Blue Falcons: Felishanna 103 DPS Annaelisa 204 DPS</P> <P>... ( sorry about the hack job :smileyvery-happy: ) ...</P> <P>Felishanna / Annaelisa.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Nice study.  I'm glad you are making this available for people to view.  I went to the more in depth thread on your guild website and noticed something interesting.</P> <P> </P> <P>Damage Received ( in damage per second )</P> <P>Green Heroics: Felishanna 45 DPS Annaelisa 56 DPS<BR>Blue-con Orcs: Felishanna 12 DPS Annaelisa 21 DPS<BR>Even Scorpions: Felishanna 31 DPS Annaelisa 43 DPS<BR>Blue Falcons: Felishanna 16 DPS Annaelisa 29 DPS</P> <P> </P> <P>I think this needs to be addressed when discussing balance.  If <STRONG>base</STRONG> <STRONG>healing</STRONG> is to be equal, disparity in defense should equal disparity in offense.  Or more simply put, by the time a fight is over, all priest classes should have used their <STRONG>base</STRONG> <STRONG>healing</STRONG> to heal the same amount.  Is it equal?  I don't know.  The above numbers don't show that it is.  They also don't show what happens when a Templar uses some of their CC abilities.</P> <P>This still leaves you with two problems though:</P> <OL> <LI>Group problem - Like many have stated, encounters are too easy and don't allow for defensive abilities to be noticed.</LI> <LI>Solo (small group) problem - Slower Killing = Slower XP = Less Loot</LI></OL> <P>Anyway, good job.  I hope this study will help you get a few things you want.<BR></P>

[MadisonPark]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nelinia wrote:<BR> <DIV>I know this topic is Templar vs Fury, but I wanted to know how much a difference is inquisitor to templar.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Healing or DPS? Inquisitors have more DPS and about the same healing power. In optimal and lucky situations templars can heal more with the lotto heals.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Has everyone forgotten our lovely Focused Benefaction which inquisitors don't have?</DIV>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>MadisonPark wrote:<div> <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> Nelinia wrote: <div>I know this topic is Templar vs Fury, but I wanted to know how much a difference is inquisitor to templar.</div> <hr> </blockquote>Healing or DPS? Inquisitors have more DPS and about the same healing power. In optimal and lucky situations templars can heal more with the lotto heals.</span> <hr> </blockquote>Has everyone forgotten our lovely Focused Benefaction which inquisitors don't have?</div><hr></blockquote></span> <p><font color="#33cc33">Warden: Hierophantic Genesis: Increases health of target by 260-318 instantly and every 2 seconds. Stuns caster</font></p> <p><font color="#ff00cc">Inquisitor: Zealotry: Increases INT of group members by 55. Increases attack speed of group members (AE) by 42%. Stuns caster.</font></p> <p><font color="#996633">Defiler: Maelstrom of Dismay: Decreases health of target encounter by 335-409 instantly and every 6 seconds. Decreases power of target encounter by 56-68 instantly and every 6 seconds. Increases health of group members (AE) by 223-273 instantly and every 6 seconds. Increases power of group members (AE) by 37-45 instantly and every 6 seconds. Stuns caster.</font></p> <p><font color="#33ccff">Templar: Focused Benefaction: When target is damaged, this spell will heal target for 335-409. Stuns caster</font></p> <p><font color="#ff0000">Fury: Porcupine: When target is damaged by melee, inflicts 186 damage on attacker. Increases mitigation of target vs all damage by 1400. Stuns caster. Can only be triggered 25 times.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Mystic: Oberon: Wards target against 1156 points of all damage. Slowly regains absortion for its duration. Stuns caster. </font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00"><font color="#ffffff">So clearly, from a healing standpoint, Templars, Mystics and Wardens have a clear advantage here.  But I believe this set of spells to be relatively balanced and should not really be included in the other discussions.  This is similiar to my standpoint on the 3 ancient spells everyone gets (which includes Back into the Fray).</font> </font></p> <div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Now we have accepted that, we can move on, and not keep coming back to "but what is the difference in DPS? Do you have any data for that?".</FONT></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'd answered that question to my satisfaction nearly two months ago on the Fury forums:  <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=17&message.id=8929&query.id=0#M8929" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=17&message.id=8929&query.id=0#M8929</A> </P> <P>Frankly, I'm glad you've chosen to parse finally, as it adds to and confirms what other Furies were already saying.  Data is good.  More data is better. <BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR><BR>"...<FONT color=#ffff00><FONT color=#ffffcc>numbers get really interesting when you start actually parsing out group fights and regarding HPS between priests."</FONT> </FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>That is the other side of the coin. I have not attempted to go in that direction .. yet. I do not have regular groupmates, it may not be possible for me, but I *might* try at some point. However, nothing stops others from doing such comparisons.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>The limited data that has been presented so far on these forums that I have read has backed up what the developers are telling us is their intention - all priests will heal equally. The mathematical analysis carried out by Timaarit and others on long threads about healing (not DPS) have infact suggested that Furies may even have superior healing in some settings. </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I've spoken to developers on their intentions.  I've tried to relay that.  If you choose to overlook or ignore that data, then you're setting yourself up for an inaccurate conclusion based on incomplete factual input - at least in my opinion. </P> <P>All priests are able to perform their baseline, least common denominator group roles equally.  This does not mean all priests heal equally anymore than it means all fighters tank equally or all scouts have equal damage.  What it means is that within a typical group, any healer should be able to perform the basic task assigned to that Archetype role.  It does not mean all heals are equal, all healing is equal, or all priests heal equally. </P> <P>You're free to believe otherwise, but I've heard the intentions and I've seen numbers which outright refute the fuzzy math I've seen presented by those with an announced agenda regarding Templars vs. Furies.  My only agenda is collecting data, keeping the facts accurate, and opining alternative viewpoints I feel are constructive.</P> <P>Don't get me wrong, the data you've collected here (and which should be reposted in the Fury forums, in my opinion) is a good indication of why parsing is good.  I'm glad you've come around on the subject, to be honest.  However, this is hardly a controversial topic.  It's fairly well documented for some time that Furies are pulling in 200-300 DPS in soloing situations.  It's not a subject that's being argued against very much for the past 2 months.</P> <P>What I'd love to see is some of your own parses in a melee heavy group (3+ fighters/scouts) with and without the use of Rebuke/Admonishment to determine if you feel that the group total DPS is or is not increasing by any specific amount.  Try to hit the parses without an agenda, and give it a fair shot - that's all I ask.  Drop Admonishment right off the bat when you do use it (rather than waiting to cast till a target's half dead).  I think you'd be surprised to see how our contributions get overlooked.  I certainly have been.</P> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caethre wrote:<BR> <P><FONT color=#ffff00><FONT color=#ffffcc> ... it's suprising to say the least to see Templars heads and tails above the rest at either healing more in less time over time; or requiring less healing to begin with. </FONT></FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I simply do not believe you. Every shred of evidence I have seen contradicts what you are saying here. Ignoring <STRONG>your</STRONG> post with claims of super-uber-high-end specially constructed groups of 4 scouts fighting orange heroics and other such extreme non-representative cases, with numbers plucked out of the air, nothing I have seen supports your claims. By contrast, there have been numerous detailed threads on these boards, with analytical posts from Timaarit and others, showing how healing power is more or less equal between certain priest classes, and that in some cases, Furies do better than Templars, in fact.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What super high end groups?  I'm level 55...finally.  Most of the groups I've parsed out were all in the 53-57 range.  We're not strutting around in all fabled gear with full spreads of Adept III/Master I spells.  When this discussion started 3 months ago, I didn't OWN a bit of fabled gear.  I was decked out in full common crafted or quested with all Apprentice IV's and Adept I's.  I'm still hardly an example of "uber"...and most of my guild would get a chuckle to hear you say that.</P> <P>I realize you aren't in a large guild (11 members with 6 listed as alts), but it doesn't mean my guild is somehow cutting edge massive.  We average only 20-25 members online each night (when everyone's in town, that is).  We're a larger guild, but we're not megolithic.  Everyone knows each other for the most part.  We're still very much a family style guild.  Certainly most of my members aren't walking around with enough time to level up two separate Tier VI healers as you are.  In many ways, you're much more "uber" than the average Legionnaire.</P> <P>These also aren't specially constructed groups.  My guild has a shortage of higher end fighters and mages.  We make due with what we have - which is an abundance of Rangers and Swashbucklers.  I also believe in playing to your strengths not your weaknesses.  I recognize that a Templar's got many spells geared toward melee support.  Therefore, when looking for extra members for my groups, I tend toward filling any positions I can with scouts over mages most of the time, and mitigation tanks over avoidance fighters.  It doesn't mean I avoid mages altogether.  It doesn't mean I eschew monks completely.  However, all things being equal, I do have a definate preference toward those classes which are going to enhance my strengths.  It only makes sense to me. </P> <P>You're free to not believe me.  You're free to not like me.  You're free to feel that I'm trolling.  You're free to feel I shouldn't be allowed to post on these forums.  All of the previous are statements you've made regarding me.  However, it doesn't mean that (A) I have anything personal against yourself (I don't) nor do I feel it's going to affect what I've seen to be true.</P> <P>Ignore the numbers all you wish.  However, if you're not even able to find groups to participate in, I fail to see how you're playing your Templar to its true potential.  We've never been a great soloing class when compared to other classes.  However, the fact remains that we <EM>can</EM> solo and this is leaps and bounds beyond what we had even in classic Everquest.  Obviously, if your playstyle revolves around more soloing or small group play, you're going to find that Templars aren't living up to our full potential.  In larger groups or even in raids, I think even you would find that Templars shine and shine brightly. </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P><BR><BR> </P>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Alephin wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <P>I am still of the opinion that priest classes are relatively balanced, and Furies may have too much DPS and should be adjusted down.  But most people suffer from a combination of nerfphobia and greed - leading to not wanting to nerf anything while only wanting to see their own class get more stuff.<BR></SPAN><BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR></P> <DIV>From reading your posts, I expect we have similar views about this.  I think there is too great a discrepancy between named and regular heroic encounter difficulties.  For the nameds to be doable, the heroics are trivial.  If encounters were tougher, in general, defensive priests would have more to do. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Add me to the consensus then.  It's why I advocate Templars to find groups that push for more, harder, faster, and stronger.  Push your groups and then you'll see the true strength of Templars.  Current everyday run-of-the-mill content is simply not allowing us to fully stretch our legs, so to speak.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Copperha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Alephin wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <P>I am still of the opinion that priest classes are relatively balanced, and Furies may have too much DPS and should be adjusted down.  But most people suffer from a combination of nerfphobia and greed - leading to not wanting to nerf anything while only wanting to see their own class get more stuff.<BR></SPAN><BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR></P> <DIV>From reading your posts, I expect we have similar views about this.  I think there is too great a discrepancy between named and regular heroic encounter difficulties.  For the nameds to be doable, the heroics are trivial.  If encounters were tougher, in general, defensive priests would have more to do. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Add me to the consensus then.  It's why I advocate Templars to find groups that push for more, harder, faster, and stronger.  Push your groups and then you'll see the true strength of Templars.  Current everyday run-of-the-mill content is simply not allowing us to fully stretch our legs, so to speak.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes, but that is exactly the problem. There is alot of content in EQ2 ranging from solo to group, from easy to very hard. While we are doing well with the hard stuff that really pushes our healing limits (one extreme of the game), we are not doing well with the other aspects of game play. Unfortunately, there is an awful lot of the 'run-of-the-mill' group and solo content in the game. Much of it I WANT to do because it helps my guild, my fellow guild members or gets me something I need/want. Can I 'technically' do the solo and run-o- the-mill stuff? Most certainly. However, when I am engaged in that type of content I want to delete my Templar. I am sorry, people can argue to their blue in the face, you will never convince me that is right or fair. Not when I can do the FULL range of content well with every other class I have played to date (post 30, Ranger, Dirge, Summoner and monk).  

[Sokolov]

I think that is a general "problem" though. By nature of the design of these games, defensive/healing skills suffer from diminishing returns - there is only so much you can do before you get little or no benefit. Conversely, damage skills tend to have a linear relationship with gains.  Double damage = half skill time. Thus, though for a Priest, healing/defense is theoritically more important in group play, this isn't true in solo play, which is why defensive oriented classes have tradtionally not been considered good soloers. <div></div>

[Andu]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote: Thus, though for a Priest, healing/defense is theoritically more important in group play, this isn't true in solo play, which is why defensive oriented classes have tradtionally not been considered good soloers. <div></div><hr></blockquote>The point is, SOE in their infinite wisdom made it mandatory to solo. They took the lynchpin of their expansion, the ultimate quest in the game, with the largest reward and made huge chunks of it solo. They then threw in tens of other quests with excellent rewards and interesting plots and stories and made them solo as well for good measure. The minute it became compulsory, it became an issue you cannot shrug off with statements like "your class was never meant to be a good soloer". Because that just reads "your class was never supposed to finish the bulk of the expansion". Which is clearly drivel.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<P>I can't argue "fun".  My idea of fun is not someone else's.  Personally, I'm not a fan of the current tradeskilling system...but to other players, that's a grand old hoot.  To some players, raiding is the most horrible excercise ever...but to myself and some others in my guild, it can be a great time to spend with friends online.  Some players wouldn't bother putting in the effort to lead a guild if you paid them outright, but for myself, that's the only way to truly enjoy the game.</P> <P>There's no parse for fun.  There's no numbers for playstyle.  However, that's why I feel there are so many choices to choose from.  It's unrealistic to believe that every class can fit every playstyle.  It's unrealistic to believe that every class can be equally "fun" to all players in every situation.</P> <P>My advice would be to find a class you enjoy playing - be it Templar or other - and play in that capacity.  It's been five Live Updates since the Combat Revamp.  At some point, we have to accept that this is the way the game is now.  For good, bad, or otherwise, the changes have occured and it's unrealistic to believe that we'll see those changes outright reversed.  We can argue for tweaks, adjustments, or specific changes - but to believe that we can, in any way, fully roll back the changes to "the good ole days" is (at least in my opinion) overreaching.</P> <P>At one point, Templars had wards and regenerations as well.  However, during Beta, we learned that this was not going to be the "new" Templar.  Even then, players claimed the class would fail without those tools.  Obviously this was not the case.  Even after the revamp, Templars are still the most popular priest class by far.  The changes may not have been what you or I or anyone personally may have wanted in whole, but it is what it is and we are what we are now.  </P> <P>Data collection points such as this thread confirm the situation as it currently exists, and serve a great purpose to show specific numbers.  The numbers themselves are quite powerful, and yet it's still not enough to answer whether or not what we're seeing is intended.  If it is, then all we're doing is shining that light on the reality as it was intended.  All we're doing then is confirming for ourselves what we feel may or may not be correct.  </P> <P>It's important that more Templars get involved in the parses - not only in soloing DPS situations, but in as many situations as we can realistically perform:  undead, with and without buffs, with and without debuffs, with and without specific healing lines, with this tank or that tank, in small groups, large groups, raids, so on and so forth.  The more data we have, the better conclusions can be drawn.</P> <P> </P>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><BR>Thus, though for a Priest, healing/defense is theoritically more important in group play, this isn't true in solo play, which is why defensive oriented classes have tradtionally not been considered good soloers.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>The point is, SOE in their infinite wisdom made it mandatory to solo. They took the lynchpin of their expansion, the ultimate quest in the game, with the largest reward and made huge chunks of it solo. They then threw in tens of other quests with excellent rewards and interesting plots and stories and made them solo as well for good measure.<BR><BR>The minute it became compulsory, it became an issue you cannot shrug off with statements like "your class was never meant to be a good soloer". Because that just reads "your class was never supposed to finish the bulk of the expansion". Which is clearly drivel.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Actually, the statements made by SOE indicate specifically that not all classes were meant to solo with the same efficiency, but that all classes are intended to solo.  If specific content is beyond your means, coming to these forums could be a way to either (A) gain wisdom and tactics that could assist in successful completion of such content, or in (B) shedding some light on an issue that might well be affecting a high percentage of fellow Templars.</P> <P> </P>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <p>Actually, the statements made by SOE indicate specifically that not all classes were meant to solo with the same efficiency, but that all classes are intended to solo.  If specific content is beyond your means, coming to these forums could be a way to either (A) gain wisdom and tactics that could assist in successful completion of such content, or in (B) shedding some light on an issue that might well be affecting a high percentage of fellow Templars.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>This doesn't make it any less unbalanced.</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Anduri wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote: Thus, though for a Priest, healing/defense is theoritically more important in group play, this isn't true in solo play, which is why defensive oriented classes have tradtionally not been considered good soloers. <div></div><hr></blockquote>The point is, SOE in their infinite wisdom made it mandatory to solo. They took the lynchpin of their expansion, the ultimate quest in the game, with the largest reward and made huge chunks of it solo. They then threw in tens of other quests with excellent rewards and interesting plots and stories and made them solo as well for good measure. The minute it became compulsory, it became an issue you cannot shrug off with statements like "your class was never meant to be a good soloer". Because that just reads "your class was never supposed to finish the bulk of the expansion". Which is clearly drivel.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>My statements were not meant to "shrug off" the issue necessarily.  My point is that the basic design of these types of games fundamentally means that this type of imbalance will occur.  I think the mistake here isn't that classes are not balanced for solo, I don't think they can be.  I think the mistake here is SoE labelling content as "solo" or "group" to begin with.  The source of a lot of these complaints stem from that.  On EQ1, for example, certain classes could do things solo that other classes couldn't, and while there was some contention to whether this was fair, it was generally accepted that that's just how things were.  Adding a "solo" tag simply means that people look at it and say "I should be able solo that efficiently," and it sets up expectations by players which I don't know if they can ever really be achieved.</span><div></div>

[Copperha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR>I think that is a general "problem" though.<BR><BR>By nature of the design of these games, defensive/healing skills suffer from diminishing returns - there is only so much you can do before you get little or no benefit.<BR><BR>Conversely, damage skills tend to have a linear relationship with gains.  Double damage = half skill time.<BR><BR>Thus, though for a Priest, healing/defense is theoritically more important in group play, this isn't true in solo play, which is why defensive oriented classes have tradtionally not been considered good soloers.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You make a very good point and I know the reality is that Templar's will probably never solo as well as other classes. However, I believe there is a threshold of tolerability when playing solo. In other words, I think it is possible to raise Templar's ability to solo enough that I don't want to break my monitor every time I try. I my opinion, LU#13 decreased my ability to solo and have fun below an acceptable threshold. To be honest, I don't know if I can put my finger on precisely what happened with the combat revamp that caused the sudden change for me. I have certainly read a number of good theories concerning what happened. I also agree with the next poster. SoE has made alot of content that requires solo play.  Therefore in my estimation it is SoE's responsibility to ensure that a majority of Templar players can participate and have fun doing so.   

[Viane]

<P>Just some food for thought...Posted right before the combat revamp was implemented</P> <P><SPAN class=pageheader><STRONG><FONT color=#d7cea4 size=5>Ask SOE #37</FONT></STRONG></SPAN></P> <HR> <P></P><I><B><FONT color=#fdf1be>Sassee:</FONT></B> Part of the changes coming to spells and combat arts is to adjust how much damage the various classes do in relation to each other. Can you tell us how the different subclasses will rank in relative damage potential?</I><BR> <B><FONT color=#fdf1be>Steve "Moorgard" Danuser:</FONT></B> Without giving the precise DPS numbers we intend each class to have, I can list how the classes will relate to one another in damage output. There are basically five groupings that classes fall into, from highest amount of damage output to the lowest.<BR><BR>First group: <UL> <LI>Wizard/Warlock</LI> <LI>Assassin/Ranger</LI></UL><BR>Second group: <UL> <LI>Conjurer/Necromancer (using damage pet)</LI> <LI>Brigand/Swashbuckler</LI></UL><BR>Third group: <UL> <LI>Coercer/Illusionist, Conjurer/Necromancer (using tank pet)</LI> <LI>Troubador/Dirge</LI> <LI>Bruiser/Monk</LI></UL><BR>Fourth group: <UL> <LI>Berserker/Shadowknight</LI> <LI>Paladin/Guardian</LI></UL><BR>Fifth group: <UL> <LI>Fury/Warden</LI> <LI>Defiler/Mystic</LI> <LI>Inquisitor/Templar</LI></UL>

[Copperha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anduri wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><BR>Thus, though for a Priest, healing/defense is theoritically more important in group play, this isn't true in solo play, which is why defensive oriented classes have tradtionally not been considered good soloers.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>The point is, SOE in their infinite wisdom made it mandatory to solo. They took the lynchpin of their expansion, the ultimate quest in the game, with the largest reward and made huge chunks of it solo. They then threw in tens of other quests with excellent rewards and interesting plots and stories and made them solo as well for good measure.<BR><BR>The minute it became compulsory, it became an issue you cannot shrug off with statements like "your class was never meant to be a good soloer". Because that just reads "your class was never supposed to finish the bulk of the expansion". Which is clearly drivel.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>My statements were not meant to "shrug off" the issue necessarily.  My point is that the basic design of these types of games fundamentally means that this type of imbalance will occur.  <BR><BR>I think the mistake here isn't that classes are not balanced for solo, I don't think they can be.  I think the mistake here is SoE labelling content as "solo" or "group" to begin with.  The source of a lot of these complaints stem from that.  On EQ1, for example, certain classes could do things solo that other classes couldn't, and while there was some contention to whether this was fair, it was generally accepted that that's just how things were.  Adding a "solo" tag simply means that people look at it and say "I should be able solo that efficiently," and it sets up expectations by players which I don't know if they can ever really be achieved.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Ahhh but you see that is precisely the difference! When I played EQ1 I knew that if I played a cleric I wasn't going to do well solo and that I really needed to be grouped. If I wanted to solo alot then I knew I should go play a mage or necromancer for example. I wasn't repeatedly told that I should be able to do it all regardless of what character class I selected. Now in EQ2, both experience and SoE propoganada led me to believe I was going to be able to solo, group and raid. I was going to be effective in most situations and I was going to have fun doing it if thats what I chose to do with my time online. Until LU#13, for me, that was the case.

[Copperha]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <P>I can't argue "fun".  My idea of fun is not someone else's.  Personally, I'm not a fan of the current tradeskilling system...but to other players, that's a grand old hoot.  To some players, raiding is the most horrible excercise ever...but to myself and some others in my guild, it can be a great time to spend with friends online.  Some players wouldn't bother putting in the effort to lead a guild if you paid them outright, but for myself, that's the only way to truly enjoy the game.</P> <P>There's no parse for fun.  There's no numbers for playstyle.  However, that's why I feel there are so many choices to choose from.  It's unrealistic to believe that every class can fit every playstyle.  It's unrealistic to believe that every class can be equally "fun" to all players in every situation.</P> <P>My advice would be to find a class you enjoy playing - be it Templar or other - and play in that capacity.  It's been five Live Updates since the Combat Revamp.  At some point, we have to accept that this is the way the game is now.  For good, bad, or otherwise, the changes have occured and it's unrealistic to believe that we'll see those changes outright reversed.  We can argue for tweaks, adjustments, or specific changes - but to believe that we can, in any way, fully roll back the changes to "the good ole days" is (at least in my opinion) overreaching.</P> <P>At one point, Templars had wards and regenerations as well.  However, during Beta, we learned that this was not going to be the "new" Templar.  Even then, players claimed the class would fail without those tools.  Obviously this was not the case.  Even after the revamp, Templars are still the most popular priest class by far.  The changes may not have been what you or I or anyone personally may have wanted in whole, but it is what it is and we are what we are now.  </P> <P>Data collection points such as this thread confirm the situation as it currently exists, and serve a great purpose to show specific numbers.  The numbers themselves are quite powerful, and yet it's still not enough to answer whether or not what we're seeing is intended.  If it is, then all we're doing is shining that light on the reality as it was intended.  All we're doing then is confirming for ourselves what we feel may or may not be correct.  </P> <P>It's important that more Templars get involved in the parses - not only in soloing DPS situations, but in as many situations as we can realistically perform:  undead, with and without buffs, with and without debuffs, with and without specific healing lines, with this tank or that tank, in small groups, large groups, raids, so on and so forth.  The more data we have, the better conclusions can be drawn.</P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Based on the inclusions of the word 'fun' I am assuming you are responding primarily to my post (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong). If so then I am sorry mate, I have obviously not expressed myself clearly enough in my post. Your response, to my eyes is comparing apples and oranges. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A better analogy would be the following: I am somebody who enjoys doing trade-skills. SoE then cames along and revamps the way trade-skills work. Now they don't change it in such a way that it is fundamentally different than it was previously. However, they change it enough that they tilt the balance from being something I enjoy doing to something that I found frustrating and annoying. Why do you think that it is unreasonable for me (and others who feel like me) to ask SoE to take another look and make some adjustments? I am not naive, I am well aware they aren't going to roll back the entire revamp. That isn't what I am asking for, I am asking for some tweeking. Now perhaps you hate TSing (both before and after the change) and consequently think that anything to do with TSing is a waste of time. Thats fine, its still does not mean that I don't have a legitimate concern. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Copperhand on <span class=date_text>12-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:00 PM</span>

[Caethre]

<DIV>OOC.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well, ignoring all this off-topic discussion <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I will post some more data.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yesterday evening I sent Felishanna to the Pillars of Flame to see how she measured up on yellow-con mobs, and tonight I sent Annaelisa to face the same foes, and I've just finished correlating all the data and tabulating all the detail on the same thread on my guild board (accessed via my signature, forum "Path of the Adventurer", thread "Templar vs Fury Parsing Data").</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I will present the summary here, as for earlier parses.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Target 5 - A Petulant Crocuta <BR>=====================</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Level 54-55 yellow-con single-encounter mobs. These are 'stock' mobs - no healing and no particular disposition to stun or interrupt (more than any mob that is).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The results were as follows :-</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>--------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Felishanna (53 Templar)<BR>- average of 130 DPS (in the range 114-146)<BR>- fight duration in the range 43-56 seconds.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Annaelisa (53 Fury)<BR>- average of 281 DPS (in the range 203-331)<BR>- fight duration in the range 20-30 seconds.<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------<BR></DIV> <DIV>Just over double the DPS again, as with lower-con single-mob encounter normal mobs. It appears the con makes little difference.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Target 6 - A Desert Prophet / Lunatic <BR>===========================</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Level 54-55 yellow-con single-encounter mobs. These interrupt a lot, stun a lot, and heal themselves, making them more ... annoying!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The results were as follows :-</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>--------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Felishanna (53 Templar)<BR>- average of 121 DPS (in the range 111-144)<BR>- fight duration in the range 39-68 seconds.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Annaelisa (53 Fury)<BR>- average of 259 DPS (in the range 194-333)<BR>- fight duration in the range 20-48 seconds.<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------<BR></DIV> <DIV>The stunning and healing had a negative effect on the DPS of both characters, and made both more "spikey", but it appears to have affected both characters about equally.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Target 7 - A Desert Prophet / Lunatic - Multiple Encounters<BR>==========================================</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Level 56-57 yellow-con multiple-encounters (all groups of 2 or 3 mobs). Like those above, these interrupt, stun and heal. They also resisted more, due to being +3 or +4 levels above my characters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The results were as follows :-</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>--------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Felishanna (53 Templar)<BR>- average of 114 DPS (in the range 93-13<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR>- fight duration in the range 57-137  seconds.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Annaelisa (53 Fury)<BR>- average of 263 DPS (in the range 193-369)<BR>- fight duration in the range 26-51 seconds.<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------</DIV> <DIV><BR>The increased interrupt rate of the group mobs and the poor AE power of the Templar lead to Felishanna's DPS actually falling compared to the single mob encounters. I did not notice her get a large number of resists, however. Annaelisa, however, did appear to suffer from a lot of resists in this test, but the sheer power of her AE capability more than made up for this and the greater interrupts compared to the single mob encounters, and her DPS actually went up (marginally), leaving her coming up to 2.5x the DPS of Felishanna here.</DIV> <DIV><BR>Do with these as you will.</DIV> <DIV><BR>Felishanna [54 Templar]<BR>Annaelisa [53 Fury]</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Dalchar]

Problem is furies have damage and augmentation of damage, almost nothing but that with the exception of runspeed and an invis.  It's very very parseable and calculateable and it's easy to make things look completely unbalanced. You can't calculate really calculate stuns, pacifies, stoneskins, efficiency, dangers of useage (pbaoes), resists, armor selection, offensive or defensive buffs, hastes, debuffs, a full combat rez, how much a difference a hp buff is, how effective a certain type of heal is regardless of how much it heals for (or prevents as a ward).  Slows will vary in effectiveness based on each individual mob, stuns similarly only stuns are big requirements on some mobs, pacifies/mez range from useless to huge benefit depending on named mob, number of mobs, con, etc.  stoneskins will vary by luck, whether it blocked a combat art or a routine hit, some hastes are proc based and unreliable, hp buffs provide additional barrier and breathing room for healing, debuffs to defense will vary in effectiveness from one mob to another and what classes are present to utilize those, statbuffs are great on the right classes, some classes can wear between 30-60% more armor selections than others...   How do you quantify these? these are the supposed equivalents to the fury dps output.  If you completely neglect their use, then sure I guess you religate it to zero, but, you're also finding that what half of the people in the forums relegate to useless status, the other half is finding invaluable.  Are they as valuable as an extra 50-100dps?  Honestly I don't know.  I would think sometimes yes, sometimes no. In easy run of mill boring content, yes, dps may likely to be more effective.  There's less of a safety net though, and when things take unexpected turns, there's less at disposal to help out.  When that named mob spawns, you've likely got an edge.  I do know people note a big difference between templar and fury though, with a fury they're happy to breeze through stuff somewhat faster, with a templar, they're seeming more likely to take on more challenging and exciting content, start using offensive stance when tankng, etc. <div></div>

[kenji]

<P>Problem is furies have damage and augmentation of damage, having best burst direct heal (fastest burst, extra timer, and a chance to double value), and best stabled special healing (on par with warden). </P>

[Shirlyn]

Ok, I have to ask, Caethre.... what's your INT/WIS on the Fury? What's your INT/WIS on the Templar? these things do have an effect. I know for one (i havn't hit T6 yet, I'm proud of myself being on the cusp of T5) when I solo, I have to watch my power. What is the power expended on the Fury? On the Templar? How much damage did you take on the Fury? on the Templar? Your numbers are all well and good, but you havn't put them in context. <div></div>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Shirlyn wrote:Ok, I have to ask, Caethre.... what's your INT/WIS on the Fury? What's your INT/WIS on the Templar? these things do have an effect. I know for one (i havn't hit T6 yet, I'm proud of myself being on the cusp of T5) when I solo, I have to watch my power. What is the power expended on the Fury? On the Templar? How much damage did you take on the Fury? on the Templar? Your numbers are all well and good, but you havn't put them in context. <div></div><hr></blockquote>*shrug* I don't see that being a problem, unless she has made a special effort to disrupt the numbers, her INT/WIS will be typical for each character, given the relatively low DPS of priests (vs DPS classes) increases in INT are unlikely to produce significant differences in the short run anyway</span><div></div>

[Shirlyn]

The reason I ask is 2-fold: 1) WIS increases powerpool, while INT increases damage (and there is a noticeable effect) 2) Less power available = more downtime between fights and less avail to heal yourself I personally believe that soloing would be considerably less painful for templars if they have a set of gear that has more INT on it. Myself, I have a set of gear for soloing (balanced INT & WIS) and a set for grouping (geared toward WIS). *shrug* I think it would help <div></div>

[Caethre]

OOC.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Shirlyn wrote:<BR><BR>what's your INT/WIS on the Fury? What's your INT/WIS on the Templar?<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The characters are both essentially generically equipped for their respective classes, with no attempt to skew the equipment toward one way or another. In short, the equipment is realistic for the classes concerned, and that is deliberately so.</P> <P>Read the original post on the thread. It refers to where all the details are written. <BR></P>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>Add me to the consensus then.  It's why I advocate Templars to find groups that push for more, harder, faster, and stronger.  Push your groups and then you'll see the true strength of Templars.  Current everyday run-of-the-mill content is simply not allowing us to fully stretch our legs, so to speak.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I agree that this is an option.  To me, though, trying to kill 1000 wimpy spiders really fast is much less satisfying than trying to kill ten of them, each having a non-zero chance of kicking your rear individually.  In this game, oranges are closest to this type of challenge, but they are annoying to fight because of all the resists.  Too much RNG noise there to suit me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For the most part, I don't really need non-stop brink-of-death action, but, when fighting yellows, I do want to have to actually heal during the fight rather than just nuking and letting GoC and fate top the tank off at the end.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Alephin</DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Viane wrote:<div></div> <p>Just some food for thought...Posted right before the combat revamp was implemented</p> <p><span class="pageheader"><strong><font color="#d7cea4" size="5">Ask SOE #37</font></strong></span></p> <hr> <p></p><i><b><font color="#fdf1be">Sassee:</font></b> Part of the changes coming to spells and combat arts is to adjust how much damage the various classes do in relation to each other. Can you tell us how the different subclasses will rank in relative damage potential?</i> <b><font color="#fdf1be">Steve "Moorgard" Danuser:</font></b> Without giving the precise DPS numbers we intend each class to have, I can list how the classes will relate to one another in damage output. There are basically five groupings that classes fall into, from highest amount of damage output to the lowest.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Yes, most people here know about this. Thing is that wizard/warlock is not in the high end of the DPS tree, conjurers are. Also ranger/assasin does more DPS than wizard/warlock. Also if templar/fury comparison is how the gas should be, then wizard/warlock should do over twice the DPS a ranger/assasin does. For what I have seen, SoE has really failed with this DPS thing, if druids really are in class 5, then other priests are in class 6 which was not intended. Maybe that is why doubling our DPS takes so long, they are once again revamping the whole system at once. </span><div></div>

[Zabumt]

<DIV>Hehe going off-topic a little here.  However, it does relate to what we've been discussing.  My alt is a 50+ Wizard.  The disparity people see among ranger/assasin vs wizard/warlock dps parses is because parsers don't pick up some of the mage's important damage.  For example... in the case of a Wizard, you won't see damage from protoflame, damage shield or flametongue added to your damage.  Instead it gets added to whomever you've cast the spell on or gets attributed to the pet (in the case of protoflame).  Also, remember that Rangers really don't do anything but damage.  They can't buff an entire group for 70+ int and str.  Or add anything special to the group that allows them to do more damage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>While I think parsers are a great tool.  Their faults go a LONG way in propagating myths about certain classes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Zabumtik on <span class=date_text>12-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:41 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Shirlyn wrote:The reason I ask is 2-fold: 1) WIS increases powerpool, while INT increases damage (and there is a noticeable effect) 2) Less power available = more downtime between fights and less avail to heal yourself I personally believe that soloing would be considerably less painful for templars if they have a set of gear that has more INT on it. Myself, I have a set of gear for soloing (balanced INT & WIS) and a set for grouping (geared toward WIS). *shrug* I think it would help <div></div><hr></blockquote>My lvl 55 templar has 227 int when I solo (different gear, including int dolls, armor pieces etc.), my nukes are adept III quality as well as my debuffs. My DPS is quite steady 150 with single targets. With groups, it drops to 120.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Alephin wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>Add me to the consensus then.  It's why I advocate Templars to find groups that push for more, harder, faster, and stronger.  Push your groups and then you'll see the true strength of Templars.  Current everyday run-of-the-mill content is simply not allowing us to fully stretch our legs, so to speak.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I agree that this is an option.  To me, though, trying to kill 1000 wimpy spiders really fast is much less satisfying than trying to kill ten of them, each having a non-zero chance of kicking your rear individually.  In this game, oranges are closest to this type of challenge, but they are annoying to fight because of all the resists.  Too much RNG noise there to suit me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For the most part, I don't really need non-stop brink-of-death action, but, when fighting yellows, I do want to have to actually heal during the fight rather than just nuking and letting GoC and fate top the tank off at the end.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Alephin</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Again, I find myself in agreement with you.  I'd like to see an across the board increase in the average fight time of at least 50-100%.</P> <P> </P>

[Nari]

I would agree with you Kendricke if fighting actually required strategy.  As it is now, that would cause it to be even more like crafting as things really start to get repetitive. <div></div>

[Caethre]

<DIV>OOC.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As an addendum to the data I have presented on this thread, I would like to add a further item. This is not a quantified comparison (since Annaelisa has now started to out-level Felishanna), but just a relevant comment on the general topic - the measurement of solo DPS of Fury and Templar.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When Anna reached 55, she scribed the Adept III ancient teaching scroll spell called "Ring of Fire". The spell description says something about summoning a pet to aid the caster. The reality is that a stationary circle of fire is created around the Fury at the time she casts the spell. Anything (in or out of the encounter currently being fought) then takes damage from being in that area. The "ring of fire" is a pet only in the sense that it has its own hitpoints and can be "slain" before the duration of the spell runs out (I've never seen it die yet, as Anna holds aggro very well).  It has a duration of 30 seconds, and a recast time of 30 seconds, so can be kept up indefinitely, and a cast time of just 2 seconds. Sounds pretty good, yes?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Actually, it is very VERY good. After a few tentative battles, I have parsed that this spell adds (on top of everything else, since it is a different timer to the nukes/dots) an extra ~30-40dps on single target encounters and for group encounters, I've measured an extra 100dps+.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Noticing such large numbers, I decided it was time to try something a little harder, just to test the boundary now. Instead of normal mobs, I decided a more challenging target would be a blue-con group heroic encounter. I chose a group of 4 Level 54 Heroic Coin Guards in Maj`Dul, these being just one level below Annaelisa herself. Pre-cast Ring of Fire, pull with AE nuke, lots of self-healing, and (between interrupts) using short-cast nukes until one is dead, then refresh ring of fire, AE nuke, and boom boom boom ... and yes, now she wins these fights.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This had major practical use today working on the Peacock quest line in the Living Tombs, trying to sneak up to a monolith to spawn a ghost, and being jumped by see-invis Heroic level 51-53 groups, and instead of fleeing, turning and killing them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I can't do a DPS comparison on the same mobs for Felishanna at level 55 as ... she is still 54, however, I would predict, that in the standard rare-crafted armour she has, she would lose these fights (taking a long time to lose, but lose nevertheless), due to a lack of DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It seems, the disparity in DPS between priests just got a lot larger than it already was, between the parses I did for level 53, and at level 55.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Felishanna [54 Templar]<BR>Annaelisa [55 Fury]</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Caethre on <span class=date_text>01-01-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:28 AM</span>

[AzraelAzgard]

<P>Rangers arent just burst damage.</P> <P>Stream of Arrows love?</P> <P>They are high constant damage with high bursts inbetween.</P> <p>Message Edited by AzraelAzgard on <span class=date_text>01-01-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:44 AM</span>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Alephin wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Kendricke wrote: <div>Add me to the consensus then.  It's why I advocate Templars to find groups that push for more, harder, faster, and stronger.  Push your groups and then you'll see the true strength of Templars.  Current everyday run-of-the-mill content is simply not allowing us to fully stretch our legs, so to speak.</div> <div> </div> <hr> </blockquote> <div>I agree that this is an option.  To me, though, trying to kill 1000 wimpy spiders really fast is much less satisfying than trying to kill ten of them, each having a non-zero chance of kicking your rear individually.  In this game, oranges are closest to this type of challenge, but they are annoying to fight because of all the resists.  Too much RNG noise there to suit me.</div> <div> </div> <div>For the most part, I don't really need non-stop brink-of-death action, but, when fighting yellows, I do want to have to actually heal during the fight rather than just nuking and letting GoC and fate top the tank off at the end.</div> <div> </div> <div>Alephin</div><hr></blockquote>Gonna talk about FFXI here again.  One of the things that made FFXI combat exciting was their implementing of HOs.  They were significantly more powerful and required precise timing, and also much easier to co-ordinate.  Another thing that FFXI did awesom was "XP chains," rewarding players for killing mobs in rapid succession if they were above a certain level of difficulty - the greater the threat, the greater the bonus (% based).  Never a dull moment when you pull a mob with your team halfdead trying to hit XP chain #6. </span><span>There were also certain marquee class abilities that were unlike anything else in the game and exclusively for that class, this combined with the HOs and the XP chains, meant that strategy was highly important for a group to obtain maximum XP.  Even if the things you were figthing were not really strong, killing them efficiently was still profitable, and by extension and combined with HOs, fun.</span> <div></div>

[Bhee]

Hi Sokolov. You bring back the memories of FFXI <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> - yes, I loved those XP chains. I think EQ2 may benefit from addition of XP chanins in future. <div></div>