There was a question Kindrike asked in another post RE: solo quests that can not be done by us.

[cadrach]

<div></div><div>There was a reply to post by Kendricke asking for one solo mission that could not be completed by a Templar.  I give you a series of quests that can be accomplished by every other class except for ours. (unless your very very lucky)</div><div>Quest:  A Tears Grifter (almost all of them)</div><div>Level of quest:  50</div><div>Con of the mobs to me: White groups and one yellow group all solo content</div><div> </div><div>I have asked around about these quests and most people are starting these quests around level 47 or 48 and finishing them with little to no problem.  I was level 49 and here is my story.</div><div> </div><div>Enter house and see one solo group (2 mobs in group no arrow white)  their group makeup was a Healer and a monk (I think it was a monk)  I start the fight and after having used the manastone effectivly finally whittle away a these two till they drop.  WOW that was close!</div><div> </div><div>Look a little farther and see a yellow group same makeup.  BAH! Well here goes! around 4 minutes later I died. </div><div> </div><div>Here is your solo quest that we can not solo when others of the same level would have no problem.  I did not have UBER equipment, nor uber spells mind you, but I do nomrally solo well(just VERY SLOW) I just could not solo this group makeup.  A healer monk combination I just could not beat it.</div><div> </div><div>I am not trying to prove anything here but you asked for a ques that could not be soloed so I gave you one that I could not solo.   </div><div> </div><div>ALSO!  Could not complete the infiltration of the court of coin (solo quest given by the truth court) due to the fact that there was a unrealistic timer...well unrealistic to us.  A breeze for everyone else in my guild (except other templars)</div><div> </div><div>EDIT: Someone may have been able to do these solo at 49 I am just saying that I could not and had to wait until I was much higher in level to accomplish it. </div><p>Message Edited by cadrach on <span class="date_text">02-14-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:43 AM</span></p>

[MadisonPark]

<blockquote><hr>cadrach wrote:<div></div><div>There was a reply to post by Kendricke asking for one solo mission that could not be completed by a Templar.  I give you a series of quests that can be accomplished by every other class except for ours. (unless your very very lucky)</div><div>Quest:  A Tears Grifter (almost all of them)</div><div>Level of quest:  50</div><div>Con of the mobs to me: White groups and one yellow group all solo content</div><div> </div><div>I have asked around about these quests and most people are starting these quests around level 47 or 48 and finishing them with little to no problem.  I was level 49 and here is my story.</div><div> </div><div>Enter house and see one solo group (2 mobs in group no arrow white)  their group makeup was a Healer and a monk (I think it was a monk)  I start the fight and after having used the manastone effectivly finally whittle away a these two till they drop.  WOW that was close!</div><div> </div><div>Look a little farther and see a yellow group same makeup.  BAH! Well here goes! around 4 minutes later I died. </div><div> </div><div>Here is your solo quest that we can not solo when others of the same level would have no problem.  I did not have UBER equipment, nor uber spells mind you, but I do nomrally solo well(just VERY SLOW) I just could not solo this group makeup.  A healer monk combination I just could not beat it.</div><div> </div><div>I am not trying to prove anything here but you asked for a ques that could not be soloed so I gave you one that I could not solo.   </div><div> </div><div>ALSO!  Could not complete the infiltration of the court of coin (solo quest given by the truth court) due to the fact that there was a unrealistic timer...well unrealistic to us.  A breeze for everyone else in my guild (except other templars)</div><div> </div><div>EDIT: Someone may have been able to do these solo at 49 I am just saying that I could not and had to wait until I was much higher in level to accomplish it. </div><p>Message Edited by cadrach on <span class="date_text">02-14-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:43 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>The quests scale to your level, so I fail to see how waiting for a higher level made doing them any more or less possible.

[Robert2005]

The trick to the court infiltration quests is the timer only applies to getting to the banner's case.  As a Templar (that cannot kill the mobs under the timer) you have to use an invis totem to get passed the mobs and click the banner inside the timer's duration.That said; there are still several steps in that series that are barely do-able as a L60 even when wearing nothing less then legendary and using master smite.  That series as a whole is not do-able by a level appropriate Templar.  You'll get to quests in that series that are even worse then those (like the one I mention in another thread I have to aggro all the MoBs so my armor proc has a chance of killing them in under the timer; lol -- at L60!).I was in Living Tombs last night working on this and just quit when a 55 Fury went by me killing in 30 secs or less the mobs I was taking 2 or 3 minutes to kill at 60.   /sob Just too frustrating to bother.

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:The trick to the court infiltration quests is the timer only applies to getting to the banner's case. As a Templar (that cannot kill the mobs under the timer) you have to use an invis totem to get passed the mobs and click the banner inside the timer's duration.<hr></blockquote>The banner quests are the Peacock line, not Truth. The OP may have been mistaken and confused the lines. I personally don't remember if there is a Coin infiltration quest from Truth.

[cadrach]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>MadisonPark wrote:The quests scale to your level, so I fail to see how waiting for a higher level made doing them any more or less possible.<hr></blockquote><font color="#ff0066">I have no idea to tell you the truth, but from what I can tell the reason it became "doable" is that in the 50's they started handing out the new spell lines (AKA Master II for heals) which is the only thing that really changed to allow me to do them  (I should add that it is still difficult though now "doable"</font><hr>Eriol wrote:<blockquote><blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:The trick to the court infiltration quests is the timer only applies to getting to the banner's case. As a Templar (that cannot kill the mobs under the timer) you have to use an invis totem to get passed the mobs and click the banner inside the timer's duration.<hr></blockquote>The banner quests are the Peacock line, not Truth. The OP may have been mistaken and confused the lines. I personally don't remember if there is a Coin infiltration quest from Truth.<hr></blockquote><p><font color="#ff00cc">Robert2005, this was before the spirit of the  Chameleon totem worked for this quest.  It had a level restriction.</font></p><p><font color="#cc00ff">Eriol, Your right I did confuse them sorry about that!</font></p><p>Message Edited by cadrach on <span class="date_text">02-14-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:39 AM = To set colors</span></p><p>Message Edited by cadrach on <span class="date_text">02-14-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:39 AM = To Edit Spirit of the wolf to spirit of the chamelon totem</span></p><p>Message Edited by cadrach on <span class="date_text">02-14-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:41 AM</span></p>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>cadrach wrote:<font color="#ff00cc">Robert2005, this was before the spirit of the wolf totem worked for this quest.  It had a level restriction.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Spirit of the Wolf is a speed totem.  You're thinking of the Spirit of Chameleon totem.  As for the level restrictions, those changed with Live Update 13 (when Desert of Flames released), didn't they?</p><p> </p><p> </p>

[cadrach]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><blockquote>Spirit of the Wolf is a speed totem.  You're thinking of the Spirit of Chameleon totem.  As for the level restrictions, those changed with Live Update 13 (when Desert of Flames released), didn't they?<hr></blockquote></blockquote><p>Yeah I edited as you were posting sorry about the confustion.  Also if they did update the totems as of LU13 I was not aware of it.  I did not become aware of these totems getting a boost until after I finally did it on my own the hard way.  But that is not the point to any of this,</p><p>The point is as a templar using my "Developer given" abilites I can not do this quest solo (untill I got a new smite spell which allowed me to kill them just in the nick of time and just barely with any health), but I could not do it at the level of the quest I had to wait a couple of levels.</p>

[cadrach]

<div></div><p>The court of coin quest is actually part of a larger quest which can be viewd here.</p><p><a target="_blank" href="http://eq2.ogaming.com/db/quests/WelcometothePeacockClub.php">http://eq2.ogaming.com/db/quests/WelcometothePeacockClub.php</a></p><p>Once you enter you only have a couple of minutes while figting multiple encounters.  HAHA  Yeah like a Templar has any chance especially when I was only level 50.  I did not complete this quest untill either 52 or 53 and I had to do it multiple times.  This is also a level 50 quest.  I am not sure if this one scales to your level though I am pretty sure it does not.</p>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>cadrach wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><blockquote>Spirit of the Wolf is a speed totem.  You're thinking of the Spirit of Chameleon totem.  As for the level restrictions, those changed with Live Update 13 (when Desert of Flames released), didn't they?<hr></blockquote></blockquote><p>Yeah I edited as you were posting sorry about the confustion.  Also if they did update the totems as of LU13 I was not aware of it.  I did not become aware of these totems getting a boost until after I finally did it on my own the hard way.  But that is not the point to any of this,</p><p>The point is as a templar using my "Developer given" abilites I can not do this quest solo (untill I got a new smite spell which allowed me to kill them just in the nick of time and just barely with any health), but I could not do it at the level of the quest I had to wait a couple of levels.</p><hr></blockquote><p>There are no "developer given" abilities in Tier 6.  You don't automatically get Apprentice II spells, and many quests are not designed for basic level gear anyway (developers have stated this).  Just as raids have levels of difficulty, so does some solo and group content (remember when the Splitpaw Champion came out - I remember how many Templars said then he was "impossible", till I and a few other Templars figured him out and posted a technique).</p><p>I'm not saying that your problems are entirely inherent.  However, I'd be surprised to hear that all Templars found this quest to be "impossible" since many of them are walking around with the rewards of the quest.</p><p>Again, I'm not arguing that we are lesser soloers than some classes.  That's confirmed fact.  I am arguing against those who say we can't solo at all.</p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class="date_text">02-14-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:49 PM</span></p>

[Lydiae]

<div></div><p>Has anyone been able to finish the Terrorgore series for Truth at my level?  I tried to kill 30 lizardmen in 15 minutes 4 times and the best I could manage was 23.  They were all solo blue con to me around the southern tear.  In the econtext of the quest, I would consider this to be a solo outing, seeing as the Terrorgore is challenging you to beat his time and he is soloing them.</p><p>I many have been able to manage it if there were 10 groups of 3 v v v  types all in the same spot with no wanderers. The single level 50 no arrow wanderers take way more than 30 seconds for me to kill, making this seem impossible.</p><p>Even if I could manage the lizardmen and gnolls, there is no way I would have been able to do the orcs in the clefts without help.  I haven't tried the mummies in the Living Tombs yet, I don't know what level or type they are.  If they're solo, it may be possible as they're undead.  Wish they were skellies though, I can burn through Sul'Dal groups down in the Eye that are yellow to me, even, with Master I Rays and Skeleton Master Smite.</p><p>As for the OP's difficulty, I did 8 or 10 Tears Grifter quests for coins and had no problem.  I thought they were fun, though not the sort of things a Templar should be doing...</p>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Lydiaele wrote:<div></div><p>Has anyone been able to finish the Terrorgore series for Truth at my level? </p><hr></blockquote><p>This is a heroic quest.  Bring a group.  I understand you personally feel it should be a solo quest, but it's clearly marked as heroic, indicating the developers designed this quest with a group in mind.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class="date_text">02-14-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:31 PM</span></p>

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<blockquote><hr>Lydiaele wrote:<p>Has anyone been able to finish the Terrorgore series for Truth at my level?</p><hr></blockquote><p>This is a heroic quest. Bring a group.</p><hr></blockquote>How many times has this come up in the last week? I know I did once (then Ken corrected me, and I checked, and he was right), and then I corrected somebody else on it once, and now this... any more than that?

[Lydiae]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><p>(remember when the Splitpaw Champion came out - I remember how many Templars said then he was "impossible", till I and a few other Templars figured him out and posted a technique).</p><p></p><hr><p>I'm pretty sure they made him easier in the solo arena.</p><p> </p><p></p><hr><p>Kendricke wrote:</p><p>Again, I'm not arguing that we are lesser soloers than some classes.  I am arguing that we can't solo at all.</p><p></p><p></p><hr><p>What?</p></blockquote>

[Lydiae]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Lydiaele wrote:<div></div><p>Has anyone been able to finish the Terrorgore series for Truth at my level? </p><hr></blockquote><p>This is a heroic quest.  Bring a group.  I understand you personally feel it should be a solo quest, but it's clearly marked as heroic, indicating the developers designed this quest with a group in mind.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class="date_text">02-14-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:31 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>There are no heroic MoBs until the last fight.  There are parts of many quests series that are not heroic, they mark the entire quest heroic if any one part is.  Harvesting 100 iron ore and severed maple in Antonica isn't heroic group activity.

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Lydiaele wrote:<div></div><blockquote><p> </p><p></p><hr><p>Kendricke wrote:</p><p>Again, I'm not arguing that we are lesser soloers than some classes.  I am arguing that we can't solo at all.</p><p></p><p></p><hr><p>What?</p></blockquote><hr></blockquote><p>A typo or momentary lapse of conciousness.  Take your pick.  I've edited the original comment now.</p><p> </p>

[MadisonPark]

You have the option of fighting heroic mobs. Theyre near the water. I know I came close to doing them, I think one run I had 29/ 30 before time ran out.

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Lydiaele wrote:<div></div><blockquote><p></p><p></p><hr><p>Kendricke wrote:</p><p>Again, I'm not arguing that we are lesser soloers than some classes. I am arguing that we can't solo at all.</p><p></p><p></p><hr><p>What?</p></blockquote><hr></blockquote><p>A typo or momentary lapse of conciousness. Take your pick. I've edited the original comment now.</p><hr></blockquote>Freudian slip?<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />j/k. Don't answer that.

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>MadisonPark wrote:You have the option of fighting heroic mobs. Theyre near the water. I know I came close to doing them, I think one run I had 29/ 30 before time ran out.<hr></blockquote><p>That's only because you're "uberleetsauce" though.</p><p> </p>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:Freudian slip?<hr></blockquote><p>To be honest, it read well in my mind when I wrote it.  Only after seeing the issue raised did I see how it was confusing. </p><p> </p>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Lydiaele wrote:<div></div>There are no heroic MoBs until the last fight.  There are parts of many quests series that are not heroic, they mark the entire quest heroic if any one part is.  Harvesting 100 iron ore and severed maple in Antonica isn't heroic group activity.<hr></blockquote><p>I can respect that.  However, you're not complaining about an inability to harvest iron or maple.  You're complaining about an inability to kill a number of targets within a timed environment in a quest that's marked heroic. </p><p>Even so, if that's the issue, it's possible the problem exists with the content, not the class.  Should the entire Templar class be revamped over a few quests...or should those few quests be touched?  If you're a producer or lead designer, what's the call you make?</p><p> </p>

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:Even so, if that's the issue, it's possible the problem exists with the content, not the class. Should the entire Templar class be revamped over a few quests...or should those few quests be touched? If you're a producer or lead designer, what's the call you make?<hr></blockquote>But while asking yourself that, also ponder this: if a quest can be done by every class except 1 or 2, is it possible that it's not the quest's fault, but the class's? That it's merely an indicator of a much worse in-general problem?If it's a <i>problem</i> for all EXCEPT 1 or 2 classes that have some special ability to let them do it, then it's probably the quest's problem. But if it's <i>OK</i> for all EXCEPT 1 or 2 classes, that likely shows a class problem.

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:Even so, if that's the issue, it's possible the problem exists with the content, not the class. Should the entire Templar class be revamped over a few quests...or should those few quests be touched? If you're a producer or lead designer, what's the call you make?<hr></blockquote>But while asking yourself that, also ponder this: if a quest can be done by every class except 1 or 2, is it possible that it's not the quest's fault, but the class's? That it's merely an indicator of a much worse in-general problem?If it's a <i>problem</i> for all EXCEPT 1 or 2 classes that have some special ability to let them do it, then it's probably the quest's problem. But if it's <i>OK</i> for all EXCEPT 1 or 2 classes, that likely shows a class problem.<hr></blockquote><p>As its been stated before, there's precedent for your question (and mine).  When it was revealed that one or two classes were having too much of a problem taking down the Splitpaw Champion (to be honest, I don't think we were one of the two), they made him easier...instead of altering the classes that had issues.</p><p> </p>

[Timaarit]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div>Even so, if that's the issue, it's possible the problem exists with the content, not the class.  Should the entire Templar class be revamped over a few quests...or should those few quests be touched?  If you're a producer or lead designer, what's the call you make?<hr></blockquote>How can it be in contents when 4/5 classes can solo the solo quests in a reasonable time? Yes, templar (and a few others) class should be revamped over 'a few' (this equals 50% of DoF content and I believe a large portion of KoS too) quests. After all, it is easier to just multiply our nukes by some number than to revamp massive amount of quests which then would be even easier (and less fun) for 4/5 of classes. That would be my call.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class="date_text">02-14-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:50 PM</span></p>

[cadrach]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:There are no "developer given" abilities in Tier 6.  You don't automatically get Apprentice II spells, and many quests are not designed for basic level gear anyway (developers have stated this).  Just as raids have levels of difficulty, so does some solo and group content (remember when the Splitpaw Champion came out - I remember how many Templars said then he was "impossible", till I and a few other Templars figured him out and posted a technique).<p>I'm not saying that your problems are entirely inherent.  However, I'd be surprised to hear that all Templars found this quest to be "impossible" since many of them are walking around with the rewards of the quest.</p><p>Again, I'm not arguing that we are lesser soloers than some classes.  I am arguing that we can't solo at all.</p><p></p><hr><p></p></blockquote><p>Your misquoting me / Reading way to far into my post. and that supprises me I know how much you hate it. </p><p>1.  "Developer given" = They created these spells not me I am not trying to insinuate that they "gave" them to me but they did create them (aka write the code for them).  If I am mistaken in this fact let me know.  I am not an idiot I know I had to buy my spells.(common give me some credit)</p><p>2.  I did not say they were impossible for any templar of any level, I said they were impossible for the given level of the quest.((untill I got a new smite spell which allowed me to kill them just in the nick of time and just barely with any health)) So at some point in time it is obviously possible (because I did it myself)</p><p>Ok now on to your rebutal.  Your quote "Just as raids have levels of difficulty, so does some solo and group content"Sure I understand this again I am not a fool, but here is the significant difference. </p><p>Solo difficulty(simplified by no means scientific) = No named single / No named group / Named solo / named solo group</p><p>You use the named gnoll in splitpaw in your example.  Well he is friggen named he should be hard and require more planning and better equipment and spells <u>a No named solo group</u> should be difficult (well for us) but not impossible when we are using adequte grear.  You should not need uber l33t gear for any Solo group period.  If you are trying to tell me that I should I will tell you that you are wrong...well and then that will just be our opinions hehe.</p><hr><p>Kendricke wrote:</p><p>Even so, if that's the issue, it's possible the problem exists with the content, not the class.  Should the entire Templar class be revamped over a few quests...or should those few quests be touched?  If you're a producer or lead designer, what's the call you make?</p><hr><p>Bring us inline with heals AND DPS.  No the quests are fine for 90 percent of the population, it is us that is having the problem as far as I can tell.  Furies sure as smack dont have the problem.  </p>

[Lydiae]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>MadisonPark wrote:You have the option of fighting heroic mobs. Theyre near the water. I know I came close to doing them, I think one run I had 29/ 30 before time ran out.<hr></blockquote><p>There are many kill X MoB's quests where you have all sorts of choices on which ones to go after.  You choose the ones you think you can deal with to satisfy the conditions of the quest.  </p><p>Have I been classified as a Templar Class Malcontent or something?  Just so we're clear, I've come to the decision that I'm neutral on the "Tempar's are Weak" issues.  I'm not getting involved in those threads any more.  I think both sides have their valid points, otherwise this wouldn't have dragged on for months and months.  I didn't post here to forward an agenda, I was genuinely interested because I'm in the middle of the quest and it's fresh in my mind.  I should have looked to see if it was posted before, I apologize.  But I do think this board has gotten a tad bit too defensive on both sides.</p>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><p>As its been stated before, there's precedent for your question (and mine).  When it was revealed that one or two classes were having too much of a problem taking down the Splitpaw Champion (to be honest, I don't think we were one of the two), they made him easier...instead of altering the classes that had issues.</p><hr></blockquote>Yeah, and it was a wrong choice. The champion was ridiculously easy for a templar to begin with but near impossible for a monk (yes, it could be done with proper gear etc.). After revamp, it became ridiculously easy for my monk, but not any easier for my templar, it just became even more boredsome fight. So revamping encounters is a really bad choice since it affects negatively those classes that have fun with it.</span><div></div>

[cadrach]

<div></div><p>I am not trying to say that all solo quests are not doable either I just want to say the ones where certain factors apply are impossible.  Any timed mission ( unless you can invis through it)  or a situations where you have a yellow cleric / fighter.</p><p>Now this in and of itself is not a problem.  I like a chalange, BUT over a year ago I chose to play a character who could heal better while not soloing well.  Now I have a character that heals just as well (AKA in line) with other classes but I still suck at soloing.  I understand that I am not a good soloer but then they should have understood they were not great healers.  They got their "Wants"  and now I want mine! </p><p>I know it is childish I am just tired of double standards which exist everywhere in society and now it has invaded my game and that ifuriates me. </p><p>Some other class -  Waaaaaa!  They heal better than me! </p><p>Developer - Ok you all heal "IN LINE" with the other classes</p><p>Templar - Hey I chose this class because it was the best healer now I want to be "IN LINE" with the damage as well then.</p><p>Developer - *crickets chriping*</p><p>All I want is a friggen bone we have waited all these months and I have even shelved my character in hope one day they will wake up.  Everynow and then I will pop on to raise some heck and then diapear again, maybe one day I will get to play him again. (I know I solo the same as I used to but I am boycotting hehe I am not playing him )</p>

[Lydiae]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><p>Even so, if that's the issue, it's possible the problem exists with the content, not the class.  Should the entire Templar class be revamped over a few quests...or should those few quests be touched?  If you're a producer or lead designer, what's the call you make?</p><p></p><hr></blockquote><p>See what I mean? :smileywink:</p><p>Any reasonable person would adjust the few quests so the class which can't complete has a shot at doing so.  It can be challenging and take a few tries, but it should be possible.  Even if another class can breeze through it.  I'm sure there are quests we can breeze through that other classes can't because of our healing ability. </p><p>I don't think the entire class needs to be revamped becasue of a few quests. All this quest needs for it to be do-able by me is more available solo group MoB's.</p><p>I'm reasonable, see?. I probably got off on the wrong foot.  :smileyhappy:</p>

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>Lydiaele wrote:I'm sure there are quests we can breeze through that other classes can't because of our healing ability.<hr></blockquote>I'd very much like to hear about one of these. Please provide an example of such.Or barring that, a type of ficticious <i>solo</i> quest that would require healing more than other aspects. And make sure that the increased DPS but marginally worse healing of furies doesn't mean they can do them faster than us, since to be balanced, there need to be situations where we're better, since they're better than us in so much.

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>cadrach wrote:<div></div><p>Now this in and of itself is not a problem.  I like a chalange, BUT over a year ago I chose to play a character who could heal better while not soloing well.  Now I have a character that heals just as well (AKA in line) with other classes but I still suck at soloing.  I understand that I am not a good soloer but then they should have understood they were not great healers.  They got their "Wants"  and now I want mine! </p><hr></blockquote><p>I once moved into an apartment that had full cable for free.  I knew I probably shouldn't have full cable for free, but I didn't exactly advertise this either.  I had no idea how I was getting free cable, but I loved it and it was a great perk.  Eventually, I just took it for granted that everyone had cable, and forgot that several of my buddies didn't have cable.  They'd come over and wonder how I could afford cable as a college student (ok, so this was quite a ways back), and I explained that I couldn't...I'd just always had cable.</p><p>Now, what's the moral of the story?</p><p>When Everquest 2 was launched, it had been announced consistently that all priests would be able to perform their basic healing functions inside of a group.  It had been stated and restated, that all priests would be equally desirable within groups since the game was balanced around the Archetypes and not the specific classes or subclasses.  However, it soon became apparent to players that this was not the case.  Templars were far and beyond better than any other healing class.  It wasn't even close.  We soon became THE healing class, at one time accounting for a full 2/3 of all priests by most estimates and counts.  That's right, out of six classes, we outnumbered the remaining five by two-to-one. </p><p>Why?  We had the free cable we were never supposed to have.  It wasn't right.  It wasn't fair.</p><p>Eventually, the cable company must have figured out the problem and they fixed it.  Suddenly, I had no more cable one day...just like SOE finally fixed the Priests.  We lost the free cable we were never supposed to have in the first place.  Now, when I lost my cable...I understood why and moved on and started to make the best of the channels I still had.  Now, I had the same basic channels as all of my friends, plus some videos they didn't (and they had some videos I didn't). </p><p> </p>

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>When Everquest 2 was launched, it had been announced consistently that all priests would be able to perform their basic healing functions inside of a group. It had been stated and restated, that all priests would be equally desirable within groups since the game was balanced around the Archetypes and not the specific classes or subclasses. However, it soon became apparent to players that this was not the case. Templars were far and beyond better than any other healing class. It wasn't even close. We soon became THE healing class, at one time accounting for a full 2/3 of all priests by most estimates and counts. That's right, out of six classes, we outnumbered the remaining five by two-to-one.</p><p>Why? We had the free cable we were never supposed to have. It wasn't right. It wasn't fair.</p><p>Eventually, the cable company must have figured out the problem and they fixed it. Suddenly, I had no more cable one day...just like SOE finally fixed the Priests. We lost the free cable we were never supposed to have in the first place. Now, when I lost my cable...I understood why and moved on and started to make the best of the channels I still had. Now, I had the same basic channels as all of my friends, plus some videos they didn't (and they had some videos I didn't).</p><hr></blockquote>And our videos were only "so-so", and theirs were "so-so" too, but both pretty much were only watching television because the videos sucked so much (that's both our utility btw). Our television was a bit better, a 54" HDTV, but theirs were pretty good too, at 52" HDTV, so not many really noticed the difference (healing).And then you find out that all the neighbors have free cable internet! The cable company felt bad that the neighbors were left out for so long, so they decided to give everybody EXCEPT us free cable internet at the same time. So if other people are looking for a house to hang out at, they ALWAYS choose the other houses. They only tend to hang out at ours when nobody else is around.The cable internet is the DPS, in case you didn't figure it out.Good analogy Kendricke. Just needed to be expanded to the very end.Edit: and you still haven't answered my quite direct and quite non-hostile post in the other thread. Please do so soon.<p>Message Edited by Eriol on <span class="date_text">02-14-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:41 PM</span></p>

[Tor]

Very nicely put, unfortunately some feel that when they took away our cable they gave it to the guy next door.  lolI was grouped with a Berserker alt of a friend of mine today.  We were trying to get him level 56 at the raptors in PoF.  We quickly realized that it would be much better with some dps so we brought a fury.  That's right....we got another priest class for dps and it worked....the fury easily out-dps'd the berserker and myself combined.I'm not sure that this is balance...yes I can control the mobs with mezes and stuns and I do so effectively.  I'm just not sure that a priest should have that kind of dps advantage over a tank class.  If that is the case, shouldn't we have the dps of a guardian?I raid way more than any other task in EQ2 but it is frustrating sometimes to see that kind of advantage in small group situations and then see them almost match me in healing parse on a raid.Food for thought.<div></div>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Toral wrote:Very nicely put, unfortunately some feel that when they took away our cable they gave it to the guy next door.  lolI was grouped with a Berserker alt of a friend of mine today.  We were trying to get him level 56 at the raptors in PoF.  We quickly realized that it would be much better with some dps so we brought a fury.  That's right....we got another priest class for dps and it worked....the fury easily out-dps'd the berserker and myself combined.I'm not sure that this is balance...yes I can control the mobs with mezes and stuns and I do so effectively.  I'm just not sure that a priest should have that kind of dps advantage over a tank class.  If that is the case, shouldn't we have the dps of a guardian?I raid way more than any other task in EQ2 but it is frustrating sometimes to see that kind of advantage in small group situations and then see them almost match me in healing parse on a raid.Food for thought.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Ironically, I was duoing with a Paladin last night at the same raptors, and we realized that we needed some DPS.  We got a wizard.  The Paladin would pull several encounters at once, and the Wizard would burn them all to the ground in no time.</p><p>The problem isn't with the disparities in classes.  I truly believe the problem is in the lack of challenging content.</p><p>If every priest is balanced to handle Grade 10 content and you can't find anything better than Grade 11 content without some level of difficulty, then soon you start to wonder why anyone would want a Grade 14 priest when you can nab any ole Grade 10 for the Grade 10 content.</p><p> </p><p> </p>

[Robert2005]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Toral wrote:Very nicely put, unfortunately some feel that when they took away our cable they gave it to the guy next door.  lolI was grouped with a Berserker alt of a friend of mine today.  We were trying to get him level 56 at the raptors in PoF.  We quickly realized that it would be much better with some dps so we brought a fury.  That's right....we got another priest class for dps and it worked....the fury easily out-dps'd the berserker and myself combined.I'm not sure that this is balance...yes I can control the mobs with mezes and stuns and I do so effectively.  I'm just not sure that a priest should have that kind of dps advantage over a tank class.  If that is the case, shouldn't we have the dps of a guardian?I raid way more than any other task in EQ2 but it is frustrating sometimes to see that kind of advantage in small group situations and then see them almost match me in healing parse on a raid.Food for thought.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Ironically, I was duoing with a Paladin last night at the same raptors, and we realized that we needed some DPS.  We got a wizard.  The Paladin would pull several encounters at once, and the Wizard would burn them all to the ground in no time.</p><p>The problem isn't with the disparities in classes.  I truly believe the problem is in the lack of challenging content.</p><p>If every priest is balanced to handle Grade 10 content and you can't find anything better than Grade 11 content without some level of difficulty, then soon you start to wonder why anyone would want a Grade 14 priest when you can nab any ole Grade 10 for the Grade 10 content.</p><p> </p><p> </p><hr></blockquote><p>And I agree with you there.  But you're leaving out the Archetype Balance problem again.  Which is why the content needs to be dialed up -and- the other 5 priests classes need either more healing power or more DPS to be balanced with Furies.</p><p> </p>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:And I agree with you there.  But you're leaving out the Archetype Balance problem again.  Which is why the content needs to be dialed up -and- the other 5 priests classes need either more healing power or more DPS to be balanced with Furies.<hr></blockquote><p>I have to tell you, I don't find that likely.  Why would SOE rachet up five classes, when it's just easier to rachet one down?</p><p> </p>

[Robert2005]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:And I agree with you there.  But you're leaving out the Archetype Balance problem again.  Which is why the content needs to be dialed up -and- the other 5 priests classes need either more healing power or more DPS to be balanced with Furies.<hr></blockquote><p>I have to tell you, I don't find that likely.  Why would SOE rachet up five classes, when it's just easier to rachet one down?</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote><p>OK... I'll take the bait.  Because it would be good for the content to get dialed up (many posts in that regard all over) and it allows for a more capable and diverse priest archetype.  More diverse = the range of offensive and defensive priest classes -- instead of all classes generally speaking being equal in the defensive category and one class being enough offense for the entire priest archetype lol.</p><p>That and I don't advocate racheting any class down as a first option.</p><p> </p>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>When Everquest 2 was launched, it had been announced consistently that all priests would be able to perform their basic healing functions inside of a group.  It had been stated and restated, that all priests would be equally desirable within groups since the game was balanced around the Archetypes and not the specific classes or subclasses. </p><hr></blockquote>First is now fulfilled, second is not. All healers are not equally desired in groups.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:And I agree with you there.  But you're leaving out the Archetype Balance problem again.  Which is why the content needs to be dialed up -and- the other 5 priests classes need either more healing power or more DPS to be balanced with Furies.<hr></blockquote><blockquote>I have to tell you, I don't find that likely.  Why would SOE rachet up five classes, when it's just easier to rachet one down?<blockquote><hr></blockquote><p>OK... I'll take the bait.  Because it would be good for the content to get dialed up (many posts in that regard all over) and it allows for a more capable and diverse priest archetype.  More diverse = the range of offensive and defensive priest classes -- instead of all classes generally speaking being equal in the defensive category and one class being enough offense for the entire priest archetype lol.</p><p>That and I don't advocate racheting any class down as a first option.</p><hr></blockquote>I agree, for the game, it would be far better to give the 5 classes DPT equal to fury than to nerf fury down to us. If they nerf furies, it will be almost impossible for the casual pickup group to get a healer.</span><div></div></blockquote></blockquote>

[kenji]

<div>Why would SOE rachet up five classes, when it's just easier to rachet one down?<hr></div><div>i dont see this point of this speech after they nerf Templar's heal and beef up other 5s...-read LU13-19-</div><div> </div><div>if 1 class is overpowered, they deserve a nerf. and brought up the underpowered priests.</div>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:And I agree with you there.  But you're leaving out the Archetype Balance problem again.  Which is why the content needs to be dialed up -and- the other 5 priests classes need either more healing power or more DPS to be balanced with Furies.<hr></blockquote><p>I have to tell you, I don't find that likely.  Why would SOE rachet up five classes, when it's just easier to rachet one down?</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote><p>OK... I'll take the bait.  Because it would be good for the content to get dialed up (many posts in that regard all over) and it allows for a more capable and diverse priest archetype.  More diverse = the range of offensive and defensive priest classes -- instead of all classes generally speaking being equal in the defensive category and one class being enough offense for the entire priest archetype lol.</p><p>That and I don't advocate racheting any class down as a first option.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Which is completely contrary to what SOE's stated recently is a "desirable course of action":</p><p> </p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>Moorgard</strong></font> stated, on <a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spells&message.id=2350&query.id=0#M2350">December 28, 2005</a>:</p><p>It's not a crazy idea; it has been mentioned by players in just about every MMO ever made. However, it's an undesirable course of action for a couple reasons.</p><p>First, balancing upward creates a spiral that never ends. Say a new necromancer ability is put into the game that makes the class far more powerful than intended. Because nerfs aren't allowed, you have to increase at least one ability for every other class to even things out. But now that all players are as a whole much more powerful, you need to increase NPC hitpoints and/or damage output to compensate. You must do this every single time you find an ability that is overpowered. Not only does this approach require significantly more work (instead of changing one variable, you're likely changing hundreds), but it introduces additional potential for imbalances which must then be addressed through another round of upscaling all your numbers. Hopefully you can see how this approach quickly inflates numbers in the game to ridiculous levels.</p><p>Second, it ultimately wouldn't satisfy the anti-nerf crowd anyway. Why? Because of a perceived effect known as <em>nerfing by proxy</em>. See, pretty much any time one class gets an improvement in some ability that intersects (or even contrasts) with that of another class, some members of that other class will invariably complain that they have been made less desirable by this change. Don't believe me? Scan a few class boards, especially after one class gets an improvement that another member of the same archetype does not. If we were to boost Ice Comet by 10%, for instance, I guarantee you that some other variety of mage would soon post how this change made his class less powerful or relevant.</p><p>For all practical purposes, seeing someone else get some benefit that you don't often ends up being perceived as a negative. That holds true whether we're talking about class changes in an MMO or about who gets a bigger raise on the job in the real world. If you get a 5% raise and someone you think was overpaid anyway gets a 7% raise, you're probably going to see that as a slight against you--even though you're better off than you were before the raise. That's just human nature.</p><p>Ultimately class balance is as much about perception and emotion as it is about data; that's what makes it such a tricky proposition. But in the end, the accumulation of class changes is never totally positive or totally negative, even when done on the scale of Live Update #13. And because so much of this relies on perception and opinion (and because the game itself keeps on growing and evolving), class balancing will be an ongoing process throughout the life of the game.</p><p> </p></blockquote>

[Timaarit]

<div></div>Well Kend, the question here is, that if they are not going to balance healer DPS by giving the rest more DPS, then why are they giving furies even more DPS while maintaining balance in healing?There is also another question, if they cannot give the rest of the priest more DPS due to game balance, why can they give furies more DPS? If priest DPS really affected so much to the game balance, why are they improving it? Also is the devs view of balance that if one class can kill something in 10s and another im 50s, the game is balanced since the average is 30s? Ever heard of having one foot frozen in ice and another in boiling water? On average things are great...So no, that Moorgards statement is really not valid for priest balance, giving more DPS to the lowest classes would not affect overall game balance to a direction where mobs should be strenghtened.Of course one option is to divide every other classes DPS by 2 (exept for the certain priests) and then halve mob health. Net result is the same as giving the priests double DPS compared to current.Of course if you are giving some classes more healing power to balance things, Moorgards statement is valid. But it really does not apply to DPS among priests.Edit: Btw, you failed to tell us why you referred to that post. Nerfing an overpowered ability has nothing to do with giving classes enough DPS to do solo quests in reasonable time.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:05 PM</span></p>

[thomasza]

<div></div><div></div><p>Point is and will remain there isnt a balance between the priest classes and no matter how many times Kendricke derailes a thread with the all is fine and we are balanced attitude. The AA system might helpout a bit but we arent balanced with it. The solo part for a templar is NOT fun but heh thats me, i love free cable afterall, although the templar was good before LU13, nerfed down badly since according to someone we were way overpowered (stated by players and Moorgard i think). But that nerf removed the fun for a lot of people. I dont want to raid ( i rather live a normal life outside the game) , i duo or group and have given up soloing since we cant solo efficiently and it is not fun at all.</p><p>Maybe it will be more fun with the AA system, who knows, my husband gave up the beta since 6 days before launch a big group of TS stuff isnt implemented yet and didnt want to look at the adventure part of it since he is only interested in the TS game. But i sure wish the devs on this board would communicate more. When i see my husband mail and talk with the devs in Vanguard and the way they listen to a large group of people even when it means they say the group is wrong, at least they take the time to say why they are thinking like that. And it works, no hard feelings from the group they communicate with. That might change when the game goes live since the community and forum attitude changes in a state every game has (afterall we dont want moderators to get out of a job now dont we :p ) But every now and then a post from Moorgard isnt enough for me and as far i can think back not many devs took the time on the templar forums explaining stuff, the only people we see are the mods (whom i have respect for, its a dirty job at times and certainly in this part of the forum.) but sorry that isnt enough for me.</p><p>Caethre made great post after great post, and reactions? Nope not one. Truth been said nobody on this board gets on the forums answers. I might dislike the tone of Kendricke's posts, and at times his attitude towards us but scratch that part of the crap out of his posts and out comes at times stuff to think about. And dont give me that crap about devs are busy for the realease of KoS, its their job, and also their job to communicate with the players. And a lot of the current war would never have excisted if they had communicated with us.</p><p>So in the end another thread on these forums changed from the original subject towards the old war game (me included i just cant keep my mouth shut) and i hope that will change a bit too when the AA sytem works out the way people are hoping although i am sure we all find new stuff to fight eachother for <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>edit: removed stuff that broke forum-rules.</p><p>Message Edited by thomasza on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:26 AM</span></p>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<div></div>Well Kend, the question here is, that if they are not going to balance healer DPS by giving the rest more DPS, then why are they giving furies even more DPS while maintaining balance in healing?<hr></blockquote><p>You're asking me questions on what SOE will or won't do.  I can't answer that.  I can only bring up likely courses of action based upon their own statements and past history.  With that experience in mind, it's not likely that you'll ever see any five classes racheted up in power to "even out" the playing field with just one class - when it would be easier all around to reduce the power of that one class to accomplish the same relative goal.</p><p>Then again, what's to say that Furies aren't intended to have a higher DPS rating?  SOE's always been fairly clear, at least in my mind, on the fact that Furies were the most offensively oriented priest class.  The very name invokes mental images of damage.</p><p> </p><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<div></div>There is also another question, if they cannot give the rest of the priest more DPS due to game balance, why can they give furies more DPS? If priest DPS really affected so much to the game balance, why are they improving it? Also is the devs view of balance that if one class can kill something in 10s and another im 50s, the game is balanced since the average is 30s? Ever heard of having one foot frozen in ice and another in boiling water? On average things are great...<hr></blockquote><p>Again, you're asking me to speak for SOE.  I can't do that.  I can only speak for myself and my guild.  All I can do is offer up my opinions on what I believe SOE would do based on their own statements and past history.</p><p>That said once more, who said they can't give other priests more DPS?  I'm seeing a lot of cleric and shaman Acheivements related to damage.  Likewise, I have seen recast times reduced on Templar damage spells in recent Updates.  You may not think it's enough, but the fact remains that <em>any</em> decrease in recast time to <em>any</em> damage spell <em>is</em> an increase in DPS.</p><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<div></div>So no, that Moorgards statement is really not valid for priest balance, giving more DPS to the lowest classes would not affect overall game balance to a direction where mobs should be strenghtened.<hr></blockquote><p>I can appreciate that you personally feel his statement is invalid, but do you really think that your belief <em>actually</em> makes his statement invalid?  Do you truly feel that SOE would not follow through on exactly what they've stated just because you or any other player doesn't feel the statement is valid?  Based on their history, I would say that's not likely.</p><p>If you feel they're incorrect in their assessment (and who am I to say otherwise), then show them.  Convincing me won't do a thing, but convincing them might.  If you feel you can create an argument in such a way as to convince SOE that all priests require the same or relative damage to Furies in order to maintain balance, then I certainly look forward to seeing such an argument.</p><p>However, be aware that SOE's just as likely to consider the situation as is balanced already.  We haven't exactly seen sweeping, across-the-board changes to priests in several updates, which leads me to believe that SOE considers priests generally balanced for the most part.  They haven't said as much, but the actions seem to speak loudly enough.  They may decide to remove or downplay some strength of ours to help with balance. </p><p>That said, how many Templars do you think would be happy losing some of our heals in exchange for damage lines, as a theorectical example?  I know I wouldn't.</p><p> </p><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<div></div>Edit: Btw, you failed to tell us why you referred to that post. Nerfing an overpowered ability has nothing to do with giving classes enough DPS to do solo quests in reasonable time.<hr></blockquote><p>I referred to that post based on the concept raised within this argument that only by increasing other priests relative power could balance be achieved.  I thought I was clear on that and apologize for any miscommunication on that point.  Basically, I wanted to point out that SOE's position on the subject seems fairly clear, no matter how much you or anyone may choose to feel the position is incorrect.</p><p>Even then, as I've stated earlier, is it the class or the content.  Based on past history, SOE is much more likely to change the specific content than to make sweeping changes to classes due to issues with specific content.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<div></div>Well Kend, the question here is, that if they are not going to balance healer DPS by giving the rest more DPS, then why are they giving furies even more DPS while maintaining balance in healing?<hr></blockquote><p>You're asking me questions on what SOE will or won't do.  I can't answer that.</p><blockquote><font color="#ffff00">Really? I just thought you were answering them by referring to Moors writing.</font> I can only bring up likely courses of action based upon their own statements and past history.  With that experience in mind, it's not likely that you'll ever see any five classes racheted up in power to "even out" the playing field with just one class - when it would be easier all around to reduce the power of that one class to accomplish the same relative goal.<font color="#ffff00">And I am questioning the logic behind it and also their intentions.</font><blockquote><p>Then again, what's to say that Furies aren't intended to have a higher DPS rating?  SOE's always been fairly clear, at least in my mind, on the fact that Furies were the most offensively oriented priest class.  The very name invokes mental images of damage.</p><p><font color="#ffff00">Where does it say that offensive priests are to have more DPS? Since defensive healers dont have more healing power but more defensive utility, offensive priests should not have more DPS but more utility that adds to the whole groups DPS and not their soloing DPS. That would be balanced.</font> </p><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<div></div>There is also another question, if they cannot give the rest of the priest more DPS due to game balance, why can they give furies more DPS? If priest DPS really affected so much to the game balance, why are they improving it? Also is the devs view of balance that if one class can kill something in 10s and another im 50s, the game is balanced since the average is 30s? Ever heard of having one foot frozen in ice and another in boiling water? On average things are great...<hr></blockquote><p>Again, you're asking me to speak for SOE.  I can't do that.  I can only speak for myself and my guild.  All I can do is offer up my opinions on what I believe SOE would do based on their own statements and past history.</p><p><font color="#ffff00">Like said, you have always been eager to answer for SOE. So are you now admitting that you have ... - umm, well the word would be personal attack by forum rules.</font></p><p>That said once more, who said they can't give other priests more DPS?  I'm seeing a lot of cleric and shaman Acheivements related to damage.  Likewise, I have seen recast times reduced on Templar damage spells in recent Updates.  You may not think it's enough, but the fact remains that <em>any</em> decrease in recast time to <em>any</em> damage spell <em>is</em> an increase in DPS.</p><p><font color="#ffff00">You have said that they shouldn't give other priests more DPS to balance priests.</font></p><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<div></div>So no, that Moorgards statement is really not valid for priest balance, giving more DPS to the lowest classes would not affect overall game balance to a direction where mobs should be strenghtened.<hr></blockquote><p>I can appreciate that you personally feel his statement is invalid, but do you really think that your belief <em>actually</em> makes his statement invalid?  Do you truly feel that SOE would not follow through on exactly what they've stated just because you or any other player doesn't feel the statement is valid?  Based on their history, I would say that's not likely.</p><p><font color="#ffff00">It is invalid when you use it to refer situation between priests. No belief there, it is a fact.</font></p><p>If you feel they're incorrect in their assessment (and who am I to say otherwise), then show them.  Convincing me won't do a thing, but convincing them might.  If you feel you can create an argument in such a way as to convince SOE that all priests require the same or relative damage to Furies in order to maintain balance, then I certainly look forward to seeing such an argument.</p><p>However, be aware that SOE's just as likely to consider the situation as is balanced already.  We haven't exactly seen sweeping, across-the-board changes to priests in several updates, which leads me to believe that SOE considers priests generally balanced for the most part.  They haven't said as much, but the actions seem to speak loudly enough.  They may decide to remove or downplay some strength of ours to help with balance. </p><p>That said, how many Templars do you think would be happy losing some of our heals in exchange for damage lines, as a theorectical example?  I know I wouldn't.</p><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<div></div>Edit: Btw, you failed to tell us why you referred to that post. Nerfing an overpowered ability has nothing to do with giving classes enough DPS to do solo quests in reasonable time.<hr></blockquote><p>I referred to that post based on the concept raised within this argument that only by increasing other priests relative power could balance be achieved.  I thought I was clear on that and apologize for any miscommunication on that point.  Basically, I wanted to point out that SOE's position on the subject seems fairly clear, no matter how much you or anyone may choose to feel the position is incorrect.</p><p>Even then, as I've stated earlier, is it the class or the content.  Based on past history, SOE is much more likely to change the specific content than to make sweeping changes to classes due to issues with specific content.</p><p><font color="#ffff00">And again your argument for SOEs true action might be correct, but you are using it to justify all your opinions. SOE has made lots of errors before and if they do as you predict (which they propably will, with that I agree), they will make yet another error.</font></p><p><font color="#ffff00">But our task in changing the devs minds would be lot easier if people weren't making so much noise by trying to act as SOE spokesmen by referring their posts and telling what they think those mean.</font></p><hr></blockquote></span><div></div></blockquote></blockquote>

[Timaarit]

Lets put this comment to your reference about Moors comment Kend; that statement is not The Final Truth. It applies only to particular situations and IT IS NOT the preferred course of action even though you claim it to be it. It is one option among others. Referring to that answers the issue in no way.So nerfing is an option, but Moor does not say that it is the only option. You, on the other hand do.<div></div>

[quetzaqotl]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><p> </p><p><font color="#ffff00"><strong>Where does it say that offensive priests are to have more DPS</strong>? Since defensive healers dont have more healing power but more defensive utility, offensive priests should not have more DPS but more utility that adds to the whole groups DPS and not their soloing DPS. That would be balanced.</font> </p></blockquote></span></blockquote></blockquote><hr></blockquote><p>Thats your personal interpretation heres the <strong>official</strong> new (as per lu19) class description:</p><p>Fury:</p><p><a target="_blank" href="http://everquest2.station.sony.com/en/main.vm#professionFury">http://everquest2.station.sony.com/en/main.vm#professionFury</a></p><p>compared to templar:</p><p><a target="_blank" href="http://everquest2.station.sony.com/en/main.vm#professionTemplar">http://everquest2.station.sony.com/en/main.vm#professionTemplar</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by quetzaqotl on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">06:58 AM</span></p>

[Diapause]

<div></div><p>Kendricke,</p><p>Your restatement of Moorgard's post about balancing upward is almost laughable. You try to make a claim that balancing 5 classes to match 1 overpowered class is unreasonable in comparison to just nerfing one.</p><p>Have you paused to consider what happened with the LU13 and the priest healing inbalance? 5 other classes where brought <strong>UP</strong> inline with Templars as well as some of our own uber-healing trimmed down. While I agree that prior to LU13, shamans, druids, and to some extent Inquisitors were inferior to Templar healing which of course required correction, the situation is now eerily similar in terms of DPS disparity.</p><p>If all priests primary focus is Healing and there is relative balance there today, each priest's secondary focus should have an equitable amount of balance. While additional DPS for templars would be welcomed since this has the most immediate and direct effect in combat, if they made our defensive secondary skills on par with Fury damage output, that would be balance to me. The latter option being rather difficult to achieve IMO.</p><p>Diapause - Lvl60 Templar- ex-Lavastorm<img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Caethre]

<div></div>OOC.<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Lydiaele wrote:<div></div><p>Has anyone been able to finish the Terrorgore series for Truth at my level? </p><hr></blockquote><p>This is a heroic quest.  Bring a group.  I understand you personally feel it should be a solo quest, but it's clearly marked as heroic, indicating the developers designed this quest with a group in mind.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Note however that I easily managed this SOLO at level 53..... with my Fury.</p><p>When my Templar wants to do it, even if it is at 60, I will have to go cap in hand and beg a friend for help. Once more I will feel a burden to someone else, asking them for help to do what if I were any other class I could do alone.</p>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Diapause wrote:<div></div><p>Kendricke,</p><p>Your restatement of Moorgard's post about balancing upward is almost laughable. You try to make a claim that balancing 5 classes to match 1 overpowered class is unreasonable in comparison to just nerfing one.</p><p>Have you paused to consider what happened with the LU13 and the priest healing inbalance? 5 other classes where brought <strong>UP</strong> inline with Templars as well as some of our own uber-healing trimmed down. While I agree that prior to LU13, shamans, druids, and to some extent Inquisitors were inferior to Templar healing which of course required correction, the situation is now eerily similar in terms of DPS disparity.</p><p>If all priests primary focus is Healing and there is relative balance there today, each priest's secondary focus should have an equitable amount of balance. While additional DPS for templars would be welcomed since this has the most immediate and direct effect in combat, if they made our defensive secondary skills on par with Fury damage output, that would be balance to me. The latter option being rather difficult to achieve IMO.</p><p>Diapause - Lvl60 Templar- ex-Lavastorm<img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><hr></blockquote><p>Priests weren't affected in a vaccuum though.  Altogether, the level of combat in general was altered throughout the system.  Healing across the board was retouched, as was damage, utility, buffs, debuffs, and every other aspect of the game. </p><p>Now, if you're advocating another full revamp of the combat system, that's one thing.  If you're asking for changes to just one aspect of five classes to bring those classes more inline with just one aspect of another different class, then I'm going to stand by my assertion that I would think that SOE's made it fairly clear on what they're more likely to do.</p><p> </p>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Caethre wrote:<div></div>OOC.<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Lydiaele wrote:<div></div><p>Has anyone been able to finish the Terrorgore series for Truth at my level? </p><hr></blockquote><p>This is a heroic quest.  Bring a group.  I understand you personally feel it should be a solo quest, but it's clearly marked as heroic, indicating the developers designed this quest with a group in mind.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Note however that I easily managed this SOLO at level 53..... with my Fury.</p><p>When my Templar wants to do it, even if it is at 60, I will have to go cap in hand and beg a friend for help. Once more I will feel a burden to someone else, asking them for help to do what if I were any other class I could do alone.</p><hr></blockquote><p>...and when I'm on my Conjuror, or my Monk, or my Fury, I have little trouble taking some some heroics.  When I'm on my warlock, I have no trouble taking down multiple heroics.  That doesn't detract from the original point, which is that this was a quest marked as Heroic, which is how SOE designers designate content they feel should require groups.</p><p>Which again begs the question:  is it the specific content, or the class?  If a specific quest is giving a specific class or two an issue, do you alter the entire class to accomodate that quest, or do you alter the specific quest? </p><p>I know what SOE's done in the past.  I know what they've said in statements as well.  That leads me to believe that they're more likely to alter the quest, not the class(es).</p><p> </p>

[thomasza]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Caethre wrote:<div></div>OOC.<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Lydiaele wrote:<div></div><p>Has anyone been able to finish the Terrorgore series for Truth at my level? </p><hr></blockquote><p>This is a heroic quest.  Bring a group.  I understand you personally feel it should be a solo quest, but it's clearly marked as heroic, indicating the developers designed this quest with a group in mind.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Note however that I easily managed this SOLO at level 53..... with my Fury.</p><p>When my Templar wants to do it, even if it is at 60, I will have to go cap in hand and beg a friend for help. Once more I will feel a burden to someone else, asking them for help to do what if I were any other class I could do alone.</p><hr></blockquote><p>...and when I'm on my Conjuror, or my Monk, or my Fury, I have little trouble taking some some heroics.  When I'm on my warlock, I have no trouble taking down multiple heroics.  That doesn't detract from the original point, which is that this was a quest marked as Heroic, which is how SOE designers designate content they feel should require groups. <font color="#ff0000">Which more or less means their isnt any balance in this game. And yes i know Moorgard stated that some classes can take up heroics while others cant. But when someone at 60 cant take a 53 heroic it means somethings wrong with that class.</font></p><p>Which again begs the question:  is it the specific content, or the class?  If a specific quest is giving a specific class or two an issue, do you alter the entire class to accomodate that quest, or do you alter the specific quest? <font color="#ff0000">Class problem and not the content, templars lack bigtime behind other priest classes and you know that yourself too.. Stop acting like the SoE spokesman, you are just a simple templar. Stop preaching how we all should think.</font></p><p>I know what SOE's done in the past.  I know what they've said in statements as well.  That leads me to believe that they're more likely to alter the quest, not the class(es). <font color="#ff0000">True its the easy way out. Just like they did with the imbuid rings all of us know the mystical ways of SoE [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] well.</font></p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Which again begs the question:  is it the specific content, or the class?  If a specific quest is giving a specific class or two an issue, do you alter the entire class to accomodate that quest, or do you alter the specific quest?</p><hr></blockquote>Well, if it only were <i>a specific quest. </i>But since it is <i>all solo quests</i>, it is far easier to tweak the classes than the quests. Also since only certain healers have problems with the quests, there is no reason to tweak the quests and tweaking the healers would in no way affect the game balance for the rest of the content. This is the point and so far, I haven't seen you take any kind of interest in responding why you object it. I have seen you refer to many statements which do not aplly to this case since they are for some single skills that are overpowered, they were not made with underpowered classes in mind.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Which again begs the question:  is it the specific content, or the class?  If a specific quest is giving a specific class or two an issue, do you alter the entire class to accomodate that quest, or do you alter the specific quest?</p><hr></blockquote>Well, if it only were <i>a specific quest. </i>But since it is <i>all solo quests</i>, it is far easier to tweak the classes than the quests. </span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Let's cut past the formalities, shall we?  I think we've danced this circle a few times already. </p><ul><li>You see, this is where I state something along the lines of "Are you stating you can't solo any non-heroic quests?  I find that hard to believe since I've pretty much soloed most of the non-heroic quests within my own journal, typically at the levels there were designed for." </li><li>This will result in you responding with something similar to something resembling that you're not saying that you can't solo...only that you feel soloing is too slow in comparison to other classes. </li><li>This will in turn compel me to point out that Templars have never soloed as quickly as other classes, and that SOE has stated that it is intentional design that not all classes solo with equal efficiency.   I'll probably include a Moorgard quote as well.</li><li>This will, of course, elicit a response from you on how you feel that SOE has it wrong and that Templar DPS should be increased in power to be on part with Fury DPS. </li><li>In response, I'll point out once again that it's easier to rachet down one class than to rachet up five classes.  Again, I'll probably post a quote again.</li></ul><p>Sound about right?  Hopefully I saved us both some time with this.  Honestly, at this point, we're simply saying the same things over and over and over.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:07 AM</span></p>

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<ul><li>This will in turn compel me to point out that Templars have never soloed as quickly as other classes, and that SOE has stated that it is intentional design that not all classes solo with equal efficiency. I'll probably include a Moorgard quote as well.</li></ul><hr></blockquote>That you continually miss the difference between "never soloed as quickly" and soloing 5x (or less) slower, and not seeing the problem therein is quite an amazing blind spot.

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><div></div><p>Sound about right?  Hopefully I saved us both some time with this.  Honestly, at this point, we're simply saying the same things over and over and over.</p><hr></blockquote>So you really are flaming the forums since you already know what I have said and still you are making the same strawmen over and over again without actually responding to the questions.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<ul><li>This will in turn compel me to point out that Templars have never soloed as quickly as other classes, and that SOE has stated that it is intentional design that not all classes solo with equal efficiency. I'll probably include a Moorgard quote as well.</li></ul><hr></blockquote>That you continually miss the difference between "never soloed as quickly" and soloing 5x (or less) slower, and not seeing the problem therein is quite an amazing blind spot.<hr></blockquote><p>Five times less than other priests?  ...or fives times less than mages?  Are we discussing apples or oranges today?  Let me know and I'll prepare my next few responses in advance so I can get those out of the way as well.</p><p>This is all the same territory we've been hashing over for months now.  I could probably just copy and paste posts I made in October to save the keystrokes.</p><p> </p>

[Truxker]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><div></div><p>Sound about right?  Hopefully I saved us both some time with this.  Honestly, at this point, we're simply saying the same things over and over and over.</p><hr></blockquote>So you really are flaming the forums since you already know what I have said and still you are making the same strawmen over and over again without actually responding to the questions.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Timaarit, it seems to me the Kendricke is trying to prevent a flame war. So lets keep these civil and not start attacking one another. Remember Civil is good, Flaming is Bad. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Five times less than other priests?  ...or fives times less than mages?  Are we discussing apples or oranges today?  Let me know and I'll prepare my next few responses in advance so I can get those out of the way as well.</p><hr></blockquote>Who cares. This is soloing. As in single play. As in no grouping. If all classes soloed solo mobs equally fast, it wouldn't break the game. In fact it would fix it.</span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Truxker wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><div></div><p>Sound about right?  Hopefully I saved us both some time with this.  Honestly, at this point, we're simply saying the same things over and over and over.</p><hr></blockquote>So you really are flaming the forums since you already know what I have said and still you are making the same strawmen over and over again without actually responding to the questions.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Timaarit, it seems to me the Kendricke is trying to prevent a flame war. So lets keep these civil and not start attacking one another. Remember Civil is good, Flaming is Bad. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote>Right. The cycle he wrote has always been started by him. I guess you (mods) did convince him that flaming is bad. But I still see that post as flaming.</span><div></div>

[Truxker]

<div></div><blockquote><p></p><hr><p>Timaarit wrote:<span></span></p><p><span>Right. The cycle he wrote has always been started by him. I guess you (mods) did convince him that flaming is bad. But I still see that post as flaming.</p></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Regardless, it needs to stop here and now please.

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Five times less than other priests? ...or fives times less than mages? Are we discussing apples or oranges today? Let me know and I'll prepare my next few responses in advance so I can get those out of the way as well.</p><hr></blockquote>Who cares. This is soloing. As in single play. As in no grouping. If all classes soloed solo mobs equally fast, it wouldn't break the game. In fact it would fix it.<hr></blockquote>Exactly. I wouldn't want total equality, but the fact you are mariginalizing the differences (and still not answering in fact), just shows your contempt for the position.And no, it's not 5x versus other priests, but 2-3x? Oh definitely. But you think even that is OK.

[Raijinn]

<DIV>Seriously I think we can have a <STRONG>discussion  </STRONG>here without all the back and forth accusations and pointed conversation. I've read many of the Templars posts here and there are good points on all sides but I think the discussion can be conducted in a more appropriate way. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What are your thoughts?</DIV>

[Dontan]

My thought: People argue about anything.<span><blockquote><hr>Raijinn Thunderguard wrote:<div>Seriously I think we can have a <strong>discussion  </strong>here without all the back and forth accusations and pointed conversation. I've read many of the Templars posts here and there are good points on all sides but I think the discussion can be conducted in a more appropriate way.</div><div> </div><div>What are your thoughts?</div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:<blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Five times less than other priests? ...or fives times less than mages? Are we discussing apples or oranges today? Let me know and I'll prepare my next few responses in advance so I can get those out of the way as well.</p><hr></blockquote>Who cares. This is soloing. As in single play. As in no grouping. If all classes soloed solo mobs equally fast, it wouldn't break the game. In fact it would fix it.<hr></span></blockquote>Exactly. I wouldn't want total equality, but the fact you are mariginalizing the differences (and still not answering in fact), just shows your contempt for the position.And no, it's not 5x versus other priests, but 2-3x? Oh definitely. But you think even that is OK.<hr></blockquote>It would really be ok if those who solo 3x slower could still solo within a reasonable time. But they/we can't. Fact is that fastest soloers will solo almost ten times as fast as the slowest. From what I have seen, the proper soloing speed is about 2,5x what templars can do. Soloing with a conjurer is fast and fun and 10 times faster than templar. Soloing with a monk is over 3 times faster than templar and is about ok. Soloing a templar - well - to be avoided at all cost. So it is not OK.</span><div></div>

[ginfress]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Raijinn Thunderguard wrote:<div>Seriously I think we can have a <strong>discussion  </strong>here without all the back and forth accusations and pointed conversation. I've read many of the Templars posts here and there are good points on all sides but I think the discussion can be conducted in a more appropriate way.</div><div> </div><div>What are your thoughts?</div><hr></blockquote>Having a normal discussion is difficult as long people like Kendricke are allowed to enter each thread stating the same stuff over and over. And thats what Tim ment with his reaction towards the mod. It feels that Kendricke is allowed to do anything he wants on these boards without fear for banning. We WANT to dicuss stuff so just make sure we can discuss stuff without being slammed by the same guy over and over again.

[Nari]

Raijin,Some of us are a little more interested in <u><i>your</i></u> thoughts on the matter.  Some of this bickering could be decreased by a definitive response about the vision your company has for templars because there seems to be a disconnect.  If your vision is to "get Nicole's 14.99," you'll probably get it anyway, but I am willing to guess that other players might want a little more detail.<div></div>

[ginfress]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:<blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Five times less than other priests? ...or fives times less than mages? Are we discussing apples or oranges today? Let me know and I'll prepare my next few responses in advance so I can get those out of the way as well.</p><hr></blockquote>Who cares. This is soloing. As in single play. As in no grouping. If all classes soloed solo mobs equally fast, it wouldn't break the game. In fact it would fix it.<hr></span></blockquote>Exactly. I wouldn't want total equality, but the fact you are mariginalizing the differences (and still not answering in fact), just shows your contempt for the position.And no, it's not 5x versus other priests, but 2-3x? Oh definitely. But you think even that is OK.<hr></blockquote>It would really be ok if those who solo 3x slower could still solo within a reasonable time. But they/we can't. Fact is that fastest soloers will solo almost ten times as fast as the slowest. From what I have seen, the proper soloing speed is about 2,5x what templars can do. Soloing with a conjurer is fast and fun and 10 times faster than templar. Soloing with a monk is over 3 times faster than templar and is about ok. Soloing a templar - well - to be avoided at all cost. So it is not OK.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Anyone tested those quests on beta where a templar has AA? I dont want to be the fastest solo class or i would have become a warlock or monk. I just want to be able to play my templar and do those quests and i want that to be fun and maybe those AA are a help with that.

[Kendricke]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>ginfress wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Raijinn Thunderguard wrote:<div>Seriously I think we can have a <strong>discussion  </strong>here without all the back and forth accusations and pointed conversation. I've read many of the Templars posts here and there are good points on all sides but I think the discussion can be conducted in a more appropriate way.</div><div> </div><div>What are your thoughts?</div><hr></blockquote>Having a normal discussion is difficult as long people like Kendricke are allowed to enter each thread stating the same stuff over and over. And thats what Tim ment with his reaction towards the mod. It feels that Kendricke is allowed to do anything he wants on these boards without fear for banning. We WANT to dicuss stuff so just make sure we can discuss stuff without being slammed by the same guy over and over again.<hr></blockquote><p>Ginfress, just to clarify:  I entered a discussion here that directly addresses me by name in response to posts which directly addressed me by name.  Are you suggesting that next time I not enter discussions which directly request my participation? </p><p>Also, I'd be curious to find a post of mine which "slams" anyone.  If you find such a post, please report it and point out such attacks publically.  I'll happily edit out any attacks or "over the line" comments I make, as well as offer a public apology on the matter.</p><p>What it comes down to is I'm just as passionate about my point of view as you are about yours.  If you post facts I disagree with, I'm going to point out what I see as an inaccuracy or discrepancy.  If you post fallacies or logical loopholes, I'm going to point that out as well.  If you post an opinion that I disagree with, then I'm likely to post my feelings on that.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:14 AM</span></p>

[ginfress]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>ginfress wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Raijinn Thunderguard wrote:<div>Seriously I think we can have a <strong>discussion  </strong>here without all the back and forth accusations and pointed conversation. I've read many of the Templars posts here and there are good points on all sides but I think the discussion can be conducted in a more appropriate way.</div><div> </div><div>What are your thoughts?</div><hr></blockquote>Having a normal discussion is difficult as long people like Kendricke are allowed to enter each thread stating the same stuff over and over. And thats what Tim ment with his reaction towards the mod. It feels that Kendricke is allowed to do anything he wants on these boards without fear for banning. We WANT to dicuss stuff so just make sure we can discuss stuff without being slammed by the same guy over and over again.<hr></blockquote><p>Ginfress, I entered a discussion here that directly addresses me by name in response to posts which directly addressed me by name.  Are you suggesting that next time I not enter discussions which directly request my participation?</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Nope thats not what i ment but i dont think i should discuss this on the forums itself <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Robert2005]

<span><blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:Raijin,Some of us are a little more interested in <u><i>your</i></u> thoughts on the matter.  Some of this bickering could be decreased by a definitive response about the vision your company has for templars because there seems to be a disconnect.  If your vision is to "get Nicole's 14.99," you'll probably get it anyway, but I am willing to guess that other players might want a little more detail.<div></div><hr></blockquote>That sums up quite a bit right there -- pretty much every thread in here, good, bad, flaming, or civil.  WHAT ON EARTH DOES SONY THINK TEMPLAR ARE SUPPOSED TO BE? We are no longer the dedicated healer.  We no longer have additional healing prowess to make up for what we give up in DPS, solo-ability, etc.  Is Kendricke correct in that we are now supposed to be "controlling Templar"?  Because if that's the case why are the other priest classes getting our so-called "utility" in T7?  (bet some of you didn't know that -- not only are other priests getting mez they're getting AoE mez!!!!!) making Templar consistently less by comparison to every other priest in the game?</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>ginfress wrote:Nope thats not what i ment but i dont think i should discuss this on the forums itself <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote>Feel free to PM then.  If you see attacks or "slams" in the future, feel free to PM me on those as well. 

[Caethre]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>ginfress wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Raijinn Thunderguard wrote:<div>Seriously I think we can have a <strong>discussion  </strong>here without all the back and forth accusations and pointed conversation. I've read many of the Templars posts here and there are good points on all sides but I think the discussion can be conducted in a more appropriate way.</div><div> </div><div>What are your thoughts?</div><hr></blockquote>Having a normal discussion is difficult as long people like Kendricke are allowed to enter each thread stating the same stuff over and over. And thats what Tim ment with his reaction towards the mod. It feels that Kendricke is allowed to do anything he wants on these boards without fear for banning. We WANT to dicuss stuff so just make sure we can discuss stuff without being slammed by the same guy over and over again.<hr></blockquote><p>What Ginfress said, exactly.</p><p>However, I think I can speak for almost all Templars in saying this - we would dearly love to hear *your* opinion on the subject at hand, Raijinn. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Should Templars really be soloing at only 1/3 the rate of Furies (another priest class)?</p>

[Raijinn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Robert2005 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> 3devious wrote:<BR>Raijin,<BR>Some of us are a little more interested in <U><I>your</I></U> thoughts on the matter.  Some of this bickering could be decreased by a definitive response about the vision your company has for templars because there seems to be a disconnect.  If your vision is to "get Nicole's 14.99," you'll probably get it anyway, but I am willing to guess that other players might want a little more detail.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>That sums up quite a bit right there -- pretty much every thread in here, good, bad, flaming, or civil.  WHAT ON EARTH DOES SONY THINK TEMPLAR ARE SUPPOSED TO BE? <BR><BR>We are no longer the dedicated healer.  We no longer have additional healing prowess to make up for what we give up in DPS, solo-ability, etc.  Is Kendricke correct in that we are now supposed to be "controlling Templar"?  Because if that's the case why are the other priest classes getting our so-called "utility" in T7?  (bet some of you didn't know that -- not only are other priests getting mez they're getting AoE mez!!!!!) making Templar consistently less by comparison to every other priest in the game?<BR><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm not really one to comment on game design decisions as I'm not the one making those choices, we have some of the best folks in the business doing that.</P> <P><BR> </P>

[Caethre]

<div></div>OOC.<blockquote><p></p><hr>Raijinn Thunderguard wrote:<p>I'm not really one to comment on game design decisions as I'm not the one making those choices, we have some of the best folks in the business doing that.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Thank you for coming back sir!</p><p>Since you are the Community Relations representative and not a game designer, your first point is fair, and judging by most of the EQ and EQII content (and I've been a player over the two for over six years), I'd agree with your second point too.</p><p>However, you know we really are seeking an answer to these questions from those who are indeed making those decisions.</p><p>Statements have been made at LU13 about the design concept that all priests are meant to fulfil the same basic role in a group (the primary healer) to an equally valid extent. However, given this statement, would it not also be fair to have all priests able to contribute in other less healing-intensive settings (such as when soloing and in small groups like duos and trios) on an equal basis to other priests? Would it not be fair to have, for example, Furies and Templars, able to solo approximately as well as eachother?</p><p>This has been the heart of the main cause of all this feedback from so many of us now for many months. I know you cannot answer the question, but I also know, that you know a man who can. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p> </p>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:Raijin,Some of us are a little more interested in <u><i>your</i></u> thoughts on the matter.  Some of this bickering could be decreased by a definitive response about the vision your company has for templars because there seems to be a disconnect.  If your vision is to "get Nicole's 14.99," you'll probably get it anyway, but I am willing to guess that other players might want a little more detail.<div></div><hr></blockquote>That sums up quite a bit right there -- pretty much every thread in here, good, bad, flaming, or civil.  WHAT ON EARTH DOES SONY THINK TEMPLAR ARE SUPPOSED TO BE? We are no longer the dedicated healer.  We no longer have additional healing prowess to make up for what we give up in DPS, solo-ability, etc.  Is Kendricke correct in that we are now supposed to be "controlling Templar"?  Because if that's the case why are the other priest classes getting our so-called "utility" in T7?  (bet some of you didn't know that -- not only are other priests getting mez they're getting AoE mez!!!!!) making Templar consistently less by comparison to every other priest in the game?</span><hr></blockquote><p>A few more "!" and CAPITAL letters and I might have to use the word "sensationalize" here.  You're not going to get a response from SOE by shouting at them and throwing an accusatory tone into your posts - at least not a positive response.  I know this because I have to ask them questions all the time as part of my job (that title under my name over to the left). </p><p>I'm the senior interviewer at Caster's Realm, and even then they don't answer every question I put in front of them - and rightfully so.  If I ask a question that makes incorrect assumptions, or perhaps is outright hostile, chances are they aren't going to answer the question (or because they aren't ready to release information that the question asks about, or because they're answering similar questions for another site, etc.).  Now, that's just my advice, and you're certainly free to ignore it.  It's your call, obviously.</p><p>Seriously though, I don't think the sky's falling, and I think that perhaps you're not understanding what I and other Templars from beta keep trying to tell you regarding the content over there.</p><p>I do feel we're a dedicated healer.  I do feel we're also a controlling healer.  I also feel we're a strong undead slayer.  Various paths in the acheivements will allow you to concentrate more on some of these ideals as well, depending on what it is you feel we should be better at.  It's a way to shore up those weaknesses you perceive in the class, as well as a way to better focus on our strengths. </p><p>No, there's no uber healing path, but honestly, I'm not going to lose sleep over that either.  We already heal better than any priest in more situations with more content.  Every situation?  No.  All content?  No.  More situations and more content?  Yes.</p><p>There's always going to be a specific quest or target encounter that we should be able to handle that we perhaps have trouble with.  That doesn't make the class suddenly broken.  It just means that specific quest or encounter may need to be looked at.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:05 PM</span></p>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Ginfress, just to clarify:  I entered a discussion here that directly addresses me by name in response to posts which directly addressed me by name.  Are you suggesting that next time I not enter discussions which directly request my participation?</p><hr></blockquote>I asker <i>your </i>opinion about certain things, not your opinion about devs intentions nor their statements. I did not ask for any quotes nor their interpretations.</span><div></div>

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Ginfress, just to clarify: I entered a discussion here that directly addresses me by name in response to posts which directly addressed me by name. Are you suggesting that next time I not enter discussions which directly request my participation?</p><p>Also, I'd be curious to find a post of mine which "slams" anyone. If you find such a post, please report it and point out such attacks publically. I'll happily edit out any attacks or "over the line" comments I make, as well as offer a public apology on the matter.</p><p>What it comes down to is I'm just as passionate about my point of view as you are about yours. If you post facts I disagree with, I'm going to point out what I see as an inaccuracy or discrepancy. If you post fallacies or logical loopholes, I'm going to point that out as well. If you post an opinion that I disagree with, then I'm likely to post my feelings on that.</p><hr></blockquote>Except when the argument doesn't HAVE logical fallacies, loopholes, or inaccurate facts attached, then you'll completely ignore it and make sure that you don't answer at all, trying to deny it exists, even when explicitly asked to address it, such as <a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=21218#M21218">this post of mine</a> that I keep linking to you, and yet you never seem to answer. But it's a post which refutes your argument completely, and since you don't like to ackknowledge such, you try and ignore it. I'll even re-post it in this message to make it easier for you to answer. Or at the least to make it more publicly known that your argument is completely flawed.<blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:Yes, I can appreciate that there exists a segment of players who enjoy soloing. I can even respect that they want to solo as Templars. I cannot understand why they feel Templars should solo as well as Furies - a class which excels at soloing, and which always has. I cannot understand how that disparity is cited as the reasoning why they feel Templars as a class is "broken".<p>If Furies did not exist at all, that reasoning would disappear. If Furies had their own soloing abilities reduced or removed, that reasoning would disappear. Therefore, logically, it's not a proper reason to cite, in my opinion, because it's a false foundation. Furies are a separate entity from Templars. Templars should be judged based upon their own abilities. Can we solo? Absolutely. Can we solo as quickly as other classes? No. That's the issue, I feel. Not that Templars as a class are "broken". We're functional. We're just not as convienent for that playstyle as other classes might be.</p><hr></blockquote>You are correct that if Furies didn't exist (or any easier-soloing priest really, not just them specifically) that this would be a non-issue, but that doesn't mean that we can ignore that they ARE there either, as it proves that our strength penalties are unjustified.What I mean is, that if Furies didn't exist, then we as a community would be more likely to accept that low DPS and difficult soloing were the inherent penalties to playing a priest. We get a certain set of benefits (healing), and therefore we need to take a corresponding set of penalties for such. There would still likely be some segments still pushing for easier soloing, as they would argue via the "soloing should be somewhat fun for all" perspective, but generally people would be more accepting of the trade-off.But once you add in another priest with close-to-all of our benefits, and much less of our weaknesses, the whole picture changes. We look vastly inferior in relation to them. Thus while we may be no worse off than under a system in which they don't exist, we feel hard done by, as we get the low DPS, but we no longer see it as justified. We're not penalized anymore becuase of our great benefit (healing), but rather for no reason at all, as another fully-capable healer doesn't have the same handicap. This is completely independant of the related problems, like competing for group spots. Because of the relative lack of healers overall, there isn't really competition for healers for group spots: they need whatever they can get. But if the market were reversed, and groups could be choosy, that would be an additional problem for us. It manifests itself a bit now, though much more marginally. However, as I stated, the central point of what would be accepted if Furies never existed - that low damage is the trade-off for healing - is now gone. We are simply less capable for no consistent reason. There now exists a double-standard.So Ken, while you have a point that if Furies weren't here that we would probably be more accepting, the fact that they DO exist show that the penalties themselves are unjustified, and we are merely less of a class than them, and not merely focused differently.<hr></blockquote>Prove me wrong by answering this. Or again demonstrate you're wrong by not answering, or merely attacking the implication that you <i>should</i> be answering. Either way works, and the latter just proving the point even further.

[Robert2005]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:Raijin,Some of us are a little more interested in <u><i>your</i></u> thoughts on the matter.  Some of this bickering could be decreased by a definitive response about the vision your company has for templars because there seems to be a disconnect.  If your vision is to "get Nicole's 14.99," you'll probably get it anyway, but I am willing to guess that other players might want a little more detail.<hr></blockquote>That sums up quite a bit right there -- pretty much every thread in here, good, bad, flaming, or civil.  WHAT ON EARTH DOES SONY THINK TEMPLAR ARE SUPPOSED TO BE? We are no longer the dedicated healer.  We no longer have additional healing prowess to make up for what we give up in DPS, solo-ability, etc.  Is Kendricke correct in that we are now supposed to be "controlling Templar"?  Because if that's the case why are the other priest classes getting our so-called "utility" in T7?  (bet some of you didn't know that -- not only are other priests getting mez they're getting AoE mez!!!!!) making Templar consistently less by comparison to every other priest in the game?</span><hr></blockquote><p>A few more "!" and CAPITAL letters and I might have to use the word "sensationalize" here.  You're not going to get a response from SOE by shouting at them and throwing an accusatory tone into your posts - at least not a positive response.  I know this because I have to ask them questions all the time as part of my job (that title under my name over to the left). </p><p>I'm the senior interviewer at Caster's Realm, and even then they don't answer every question I put in front of them - and rightfully so.  If I ask a question that makes incorrect assumptions, or perhaps is outright hostile, chances are they aren't going to answer the question (or because they aren't ready to release information that the question asks about, or because they're answering similar questions for another site, etc.).  Now, that's just my advice, and you're certainly free to ignore it.  It's your call, obviously.</p><p>Seriously though, I don't think the sky's falling, and I think that perhaps you're not understanding what I and other Templars from beta keep trying to tell you regarding the content over there.</p><p>I do feel we're a dedicated healer.  I do feel we're also a controlling healer.  I also feel we're a strong undead slayer.  Various paths in the acheivements will allow you to concentrate more on some of these ideals as well, depending on what it is you feel we should be better at.  It's a way to shore up those weaknesses you perceive in the class, as well as a way to better focus on our strengths. </p><p>No, there's no uber healing path, but honestly, I'm not going to lose sleep over that either.  We already heal better than any priest in more situations with more content.  Every situation?  No.  All content?  No.  More situations and more content?  Yes.</p><p>There's always going to be a specific quest or target encounter that we should be able to handle that we perhaps have trouble with.  That doesn't make the class suddenly broken.  It just means that specific quest or encounter may need to be looked at.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:05 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Hmm.  Well, you're posting your response to me directly so I'll answer it.  I don't think I was being accusatory and I also don't think I was shouting since I didn't capitalize the entire thing just one sentence to emphasize the core topic in my response.  You are sure being sensitive on Sony's behalf.  They're a great big company with lots of professionals I'm reasonably certain they don't need you running interference for them. As a somewhat humorous aside -- I bet I'm an associate editor for a worldwide publication (and website) that has one heck of a lot more readers and subscribers (paying customers FTW!)  then yours does.  lol.  But I don't throw around my credentials as if it matters on a gaming website.And the talk about sky is falling etc?  Ahh... what's that have to do with anything?  Please stop fabricating your OWN fictional opinions to shoot down. Does proving YOUR fictional opinions wrong mean something to you?   </span><span>/shrug</span><span>Attributing your personal fictional opinions to someone else (me in this case) is a flame of the highest order -- I certainly hope the mods will start moderating that behavior.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><p>Regardless of whether your website could beat up my website, or whether or not you feel I'm "flaming" you by posting a differing opinion, it doesn't change the fact that SOE's stated clearly they tend to avoid certain types of posts.  I was simply trying to point that out again:</p><blockquote><p><em>"Things the Community Team and Development Team WILL MOST LIKELY NOT Respond To:Threads addressed to a “Red Name” or "devs." If we responded to them, then you would see hundreds of posts trying to get our attention this way. Threads with a name in the title will almost never see an official response."</em>  - Blackguard, December 14, 2005</p><p><em>"...[M]aking sarcastic threads and (so I hear, though I didn't see it myself) threads that attack the development team are the exact opposite of a good way to be heard. If a particular person makes us resent them, we aren't going to read what they have to say in the first place. That's not saying we don't listen to the concerns of Enchanters, but it is saying we do not listen to the concerns of someone who obviously lacks any respect for the development team or the rest of the player community. If you start a post with "screw you SOE" or anything nearly as abrasive, we don't read your post."</em>  - Blackguard, November 19, 2005</p><p><em>"Want to know the secret for getting into betas?  Be nice to developers.  Be polite.  Be constructive.  Then when you send one of us a message saying "My guild would like to help you beta test." We are more inclined to believe that you and your guild will actually test and not find all the loot drops."</em>  - Lyndro-EQ2, February 5, 2006</p></blockquote><p>That's just comments from the few months on the official forums.  I could go back years and bring in articles or other forums and expand the quotes to a few dozen if I thought it necessary to get the point across - the developers tend not to respond to abrasive demands for information.  As an associate editor for a magazine, I believe you can appreciate that.</p><p> </p><p>   </p><p> </p><blockquote><p> </p></blockquote>

[ginfress]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><p>Regardless of whether your website could beat up my website, or whether or not you feel I'm "flaming" you by posting a differing opinion, it doesn't change the fact that SOE's stated clearly they tend to avoid certain types of posts.  I was simply trying to point that out again: <font color="#ff0000">Again your acting like you speak for SoE, report a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] post if you think it breaks a rule. RP:If this is how a Lord should act...glad i hate Marr :p</font></p><blockquote><p><em>"Things the Community Team and Development Team WILL MOST LIKELY NOT Respond To:Threads addressed to a “Red Name” or "devs." If we responded to them, then you would see hundreds of posts trying to get our attention this way. Threads with a name in the title will almost never see an official response."</em>  - Blackguard, December 14, 2005</p><p><em>"...[M]aking sarcastic threads and (so I hear, though I didn't see it myself) threads that attack the development team are the exact opposite of a good way to be heard. If a particular person makes us resent them, we aren't going to read what they have to say in the first place. That's not saying we don't listen to the concerns of Enchanters, but it is saying we do not listen to the concerns of someone who obviously lacks any respect for the development team or the rest of the player community. If you start a post with "screw you SOE" or anything nearly as abrasive, we don't read your post."</em>  - Blackguard, November 19, 2005</p><p><em>"Want to know the secret for getting into betas?  Be nice to developers.  Be polite.  Be constructive.  Then when you send one of us a message saying "My guild would like to help you beta test." We are more inclined to believe that you and your guild will actually test and not find all the loot drops."</em>  - Lyndro-EQ2, February 5, 2006</p></blockquote><p>That's just comments from the few months on the official forums.  I could go back years and bring in articles or other forums and expand the quotes to a few dozen if I thought it necessary to get the point across - the developers tend not to respond to abrasive demands for information.  As an associate editor for a magazine, I believe you can appreciate that. <font color="#ff0000">So far neither way has brought a developer towards us and what i see from beta isnt really encouriging either. (the templar discussion part that is) </font></p><p>   </p><p> </p><blockquote><p> </p></blockquote><hr></blockquote><p>Message Edited by ginfress on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:02 PM</span></p>

[ginfress]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:Raijin,Some of us are a little more interested in <u><i>your</i></u> thoughts on the matter.  Some of this bickering could be decreased by a definitive response about the vision your company has for templars because there seems to be a disconnect.  If your vision is to "get Nicole's 14.99," you'll probably get it anyway, but I am willing to guess that other players might want a little more detail.<hr></blockquote>That sums up quite a bit right there -- pretty much every thread in here, good, bad, flaming, or civil.  WHAT ON EARTH DOES SONY THINK TEMPLAR ARE SUPPOSED TO BE? We are no longer the dedicated healer.  We no longer have additional healing prowess to make up for what we give up in DPS, solo-ability, etc.  Is Kendricke correct in that we are now supposed to be "controlling Templar"?  Because if that's the case why are the other priest classes getting our so-called "utility" in T7?  (bet some of you didn't know that -- not only are other priests getting mez they're getting AoE mez!!!!!) making Templar consistently less by comparison to every other priest in the game?</span><hr></blockquote><p>....</p><p> </p><p></p><hr></blockquote>Hmm.  Well, you're posting your response to me directly so I'll answer it.  I don't think I was being accusatory and I also don't think I was shouting since I didn't capitalize the entire thing just one sentence to emphasize the core topic in my response.  You are sure being sensitive on Sony's behalf.  They're a great big company with lots of professionals I'm reasonably certain they don't need you running interference for them. As a somewhat humorous aside -- I bet I'm an associate editor for a worldwide publication (and website) that has one heck of a lot more readers and subscribers (paying customers FTW!)  then yours does.  lol.  But I don't throw around my credentials as if it matters on a gaming website.And the talk about sky is falling etc?  Ahh... what's that have to do with anything?  Please stop fabricating your OWN fictional opinions to shoot down. Does proving YOUR fictional opinions wrong mean something to you?   </span><span>/shrug</span><span>Attributing your personal fictional opinions to someone else (me in this case) is a flame of the highest order -- I certainly hope the mods will start moderating that behavior. <font color="#ff0000">Keep dreaming :p</font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>

[Nari]

Hey Kendricke, Raijin asked for our thoughts, I told him mine.<div></div>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>ginfress wrote:<font color="#ff0000">So far neither way has brought a developer towards us and what i see from beta isnt really encouriging either. (the templar discussion part that is) </font><hr></blockquote><p>Really?  I can point to several posts made by Don "Silverfrost" Neufeld within the Holy Books of Templar.  You may not think he qualifies as a Developer, as he's only the Lead Programmer for Everquest 2, but personally I thought that qualified.</p><p> </p>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><p>Really?  I can point to several posts made by Don "Silverfrost" Neufeld within the Holy Books of Templar.  You may not think he qualifies as a Developer, as he's only the Lead Programmer for Everquest 2, but personally I thought that qualified.</p><hr></blockquote>I sincerely doubt that thread had anything to do with getting those things fixed. And I would be very scared if it did since it was a collection of ideas from other threads. You see if it has, it would mean that they really only listen to one voice. And that would be really scary.</span><div></div>

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<blockquote><hr>ginfress wrote:<font color="#ff0000">So far neither way has brought a developer towards us and what i see from beta isnt really encouriging either. (the templar discussion part that is) </font><hr></blockquote><p>Really? I can point to several posts made by Don "Silverfrost" Neufeld within the Holy Books of Templar. You may not think he qualifies as a Developer, as he's only the Lead Programmer for Everquest 2, but personally I thought that qualified.</p><hr></blockquote>Nothing since december 1st, and NOTHING addressing the #1 issue to most of the templars out there: DPS. And most (all?) of his comments are also addressing pure bugs, not balance issues.And nice still not answering my post Ken. You could at least tell me off or something. Say "I don't want to answer it." Any of those are answer enough. Ignoring it will just keep it coming up.

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:Nothing since december 1st, and NOTHING addressing the #1 issue to most of the templars out there: DPS. And most (all?) of his comments are also addressing pure bugs, not balance issues.<hr></blockquote><p>...except for that little Acheivements system coming up within a week.  Apparently that's where they've taken the ideas and put the resources. </p><p> </p>

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:Nothing since december 1st, and NOTHING addressing the #1 issue to most of the templars out there: DPS. And most (all?) of his comments are also addressing pure bugs, not balance issues.<hr></blockquote><p>...except for that little Acheivements system coming up within a week. Apparently that's where they've taken the ideas and put the resources.</p><hr></blockquote>Nice little shot at a de-rail there. You asserted that your ways caused dialogue by mentioning Silver in the HBoT thread, and I refuted that. Then you throw in the idea that Achievements are the fix? HA! I've already shown (through numbers like <30DPS (which is miniscule at lvl 60+) from Castigation, which you keep parading out) that the DPS increase is pathetic, and you yourself refuse to provide even simple things like fight durations to back up your claims on how great they are.As well as you keep refusing to answer a very non-hostile previous post. Every time you refuse to answer, I lose more and more respect for you. It just shows you only try and answer (or de-rail) posts which you think you can knock down. Try taking down a real target for once without a de-rail in the process.

[missionarymarr]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Raijinn Thunderguard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:Raijin,Some of us are a little more interested in <u><i>your</i></u> thoughts on the matter.  Some of this bickering could be decreased by a definitive response about the vision your company has for templars because there seems to be a disconnect.  If your vision is to "get Nicole's 14.99," you'll probably get it anyway, but I am willing to guess that other players might want a little more detail.<div></div><hr></blockquote>That sums up quite a bit right there -- pretty much every thread in here, good, bad, flaming, or civil.  WHAT ON EARTH DOES SONY THINK TEMPLAR ARE SUPPOSED TO BE? We are no longer the dedicated healer.  We no longer have additional healing prowess to make up for what we give up in DPS, solo-ability, etc.  Is Kendricke correct in that we are now supposed to be "controlling Templar"?  Because if that's the case why are the other priest classes getting our so-called "utility" in T7?  (bet some of you didn't know that -- not only are other priests getting mez they're getting AoE mez!!!!!) making Templar consistently less by comparison to every other priest in the game?</span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p>I'm not really one to comment on game design decisions as I'm not the one making those choices, we have some of the best folks in the business doing that.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>I understand that but can you go to the DEVs responsible for things like these and get us an answer. Either have them start to post to some of the complaints and get their answers and post them yourself. The way things are now we don't get much idea of what the DEVs feel about any of our complaints until they finally get a fix in and then we don't get much explanation until people start complaining. We need better communication here for the Forums to be more useful and to help stop all the flame wars.

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:Nothing since december 1st, and NOTHING addressing the #1 issue to most of the templars out there: DPS. And most (all?) of his comments are also addressing pure bugs, not balance issues.<hr></blockquote><p>...except for that little Acheivements system coming up within a week. Apparently that's where they've taken the ideas and put the resources.</p><hr></blockquote>Nice little shot at a de-rail there. You asserted that your ways caused dialogue by mentioning Silver in the HBoT thread, and I refuted that. Then you throw in the idea that Achievements are the fix? HA! I've already shown (through numbers like <30DPS (which is miniscule at lvl 60+) from Castigation, which you keep parading out) that the DPS increase is pathetic, and you yourself refuse to provide even simple things like fight durations to back up your claims on how great they are.As well as you keep refusing to answer a very non-hostile previous post. Every time you refuse to answer, I lose more and more respect for you. It just shows you only try and answer (or de-rail) posts which you think you can knock down. Try taking down a real target for once without a de-rail in the process.<hr></blockquote><p>You think that's pathetic.  That's your opinion.  Other Templars have been wanting a DPS increase.  It's a DPS increase.  What?  DPS increases only count if they pull in an additional 200 DPS? </p><p>Most Templars in Tier 6 only claim to average around an 80-110 DPS.  Even at it's WORST, Divine Castigation is 1300 damage per minute, or ~21 DPS.  At it's worst, that's an increase of around 20-25% DPS.  A 20-25% increase isn't "pathetic" in my book.  At best, Divine Castigation by itself, brings in an additional 2100 damage per minute, or ~35 DPS, which is roughly a 30-45% increase in DPS, depending on who's numbers you listen to.  I'm going to guess that not even you really feel a 30-45% increase in DPS is "pathetic". </p><p>Even then, just to get that maximum DPS value, you had to spend a minimum of 8 points boosting your intelligence to do so.  That's a LOT of additional DPS from your regular spells as well.  You should SEE what a Strike does to undead when you've got well over 200 Intelligence.</p><p>However, when all is sai and done, we're not the best class for soloing.  I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it:  Templars are a relatively low DPS class.  We've always been a relatively low DPS class.  It's quite likely that we're always going to be a low DPS class.  Please quote this, bookmark it, and refer to it often if need be.  In two years, I'll requote myself saying this when folks are complaining that Tier 11 Templars are only pulling down 300 DPS and Furies are pulling 2-3 times as much.  I wish I had quotes from the old Beta forums where I was saying this over 1 1/2 years ago. </p><p>If you want to argue that Furies do more damage than Templars, then you're going to win.  I can't argue that fact.  I've never argued that fact.  I've always stated - long before Live Update 13, mind you - that Furies do more damage than Templars. </p><p>Honestly, I'm just going to start cutting and pasting old responses on this.  It's all been said before:</p><ul><li>In the old world:  Furies do more damage than Templars</li></ul><p>That was true in November 2004.  It was true in December as well.  It was also true in January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, and September of 2005.  Then Live Update 13 happened and HOLY COW:</p><ul><li>In the new world:  Furies do more damage than Templars</li></ul><p><em>Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.</em>  Imagine that.  :smileyindifferent:</p><p>This doesn't mean Templars gaining 30 DPS from one new spell line is a bad thing.  It doesn't make a 20-50 DPS increase "pathetic".  It's only "pathetic" when you start looking over that fence at everyone else. </p><p> </p>

[MadisonPark]

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>MadisonPark wrote:You have the option of fighting heroic mobs. Theyre near the water. I know I came close to doing them, I think one run I had 29/ 30 before time ran out.<hr></blockquote><p>That's only because you're "uberleetsauce" though.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Yep, that's why you love me so much.  I eventually got Rorrak (a 57 at the time Guardian, for the uninitated) to help me and together we had weak dps.

[Eriol]

Percentages mean absolutely nothing. If we had 1DPS and went to 10DPS that'd be a 1000% increase. But it actually means we'd still be in the crapper. So % increase is a neat way for spin doctors to emphasize amounts with them meaning absolutely nothing. Stop using them. Going from crap to slightly less crap, no matter the percentages, you're still in crap.The number that actually mattered there was the numbers between 25 and 35 DPS increase, which yes, IS pathetic. Until you see the effects of such, like FIGHT DURATIONS (which many like-minded templars will let the cat out of the bag on when beta ends), those numbers are more useful, but are still quite bad. It is again a case of reducing fight durations from "f'n horrible", to "omg really horrible", unless you can provide proof differently.And you can keep repeating the "we'd be fine if Furies didn't exist" fallacy too. I also addressed that in my post above, and yet you just re-stated your flawed position without refuting my points. Good job there not refuting ANYTHING I said. Explain why the previous post is wrong, don't just re-state what you said. Sounds like an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseum" target="_blank">Ad Nauseum</a> approach to debate.Oh wait, I knew that's what you were doing, and hence not letting you get away with it.Try again, actually refuting my points this time.

[MadisonPark]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Lydiaele wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>MadisonPark wrote:You have the option of fighting heroic mobs. Theyre near the water. I know I came close to doing them, I think one run I had 29/ 30 before time ran out.<hr></blockquote><p>There are many kill X MoB's quests where you have all sorts of choices on which ones to go after.  You choose the ones you think you can deal with to satisfy the conditions of the quest.  </p><p></p><hr></blockquote>True, my opion was the quickest way to complete the quest was to do the groups with multiple mobs in the encounter (as opposed to the single solo encounters).  I found the most efficent way to do this was comibning the groups of 4 heroic encounters and the groups of 3 solo triple down encounters. Granted, this is besides the point as I will admit that one must be both high level (60) and lucky enough for all the grouped encounters to even all be up, in order to even almost accomplish it..  I personally was still unable to complete it solo- so I am not disputing the validity of this quest being close to, if not, impossible to solo. Merely adding insight to the reason it was marked as heroic.

[MadisonPark]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><p>As its been stated before, there's precedent for your question (and mine).  When it was revealed that one or two classes were having too much of a problem taking down the Splitpaw Champion (to be honest, I don't think we were one of the two), they made him easier...instead of altering the classes that had issues.</p><hr></blockquote>Yeah, and it was a wrong choice. The champion was ridiculously easy for a templar to begin with but near impossible for a monk (yes, it could be done with proper gear etc.). After revamp, it became ridiculously easy for my monk, but not any easier for my templar, it just became even more boredsome fight. So revamping encounters is a really bad choice since it affects negatively those classes that have fun with it.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I am unfamiliar as to when the champion was ever "ridiculously easy" for a templar. I recall multiple threads for advice on how to handle the champion. As well, I recall, even being a well equipped (at the time) templar defeating him with only a portion of my health and no power.  Unless of course you meant ridiculously hard, which would make more sense.

[missionarymarr]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:Nothing since december 1st, and NOTHING addressing the #1 issue to most of the templars out there: DPS. And most (all?) of his comments are also addressing pure bugs, not balance issues.<hr></blockquote><p>...except for that little Acheivements system coming up within a week. Apparently that's where they've taken the ideas and put the resources.</p><hr></blockquote>Nice little shot at a de-rail there. You asserted that your ways caused dialogue by mentioning Silver in the HBoT thread, and I refuted that. Then you throw in the idea that Achievements are the fix? HA! I've already shown (through numbers like <30DPS (which is miniscule at lvl 60+) from Castigation, which you keep parading out) that the DPS increase is pathetic, and you yourself refuse to provide even simple things like fight durations to back up your claims on how great they are.As well as you keep refusing to answer a very non-hostile previous post. Every time you refuse to answer, I lose more and more respect for you. It just shows you only try and answer (or de-rail) posts which you think you can knock down. Try taking down a real target for once without a de-rail in the process.<hr></blockquote><p>You think that's pathetic.  That's your opinion.  Other Templars have been wanting a DPS increase.  It's a DPS increase.  What?  DPS increases only count if they pull in an additional 200 DPS? </p><p>Most Templars in Tier 6 only claim to average around an 80-110 DPS.  Even at it's WORST, Divine Castigation is 1300 damage per minute, or ~21 DPS.  At it's worst, that's an increase of around 20-25% DPS.  A 20-25% increase isn't "pathetic" in my book.  At best, Divine Castigation by itself, brings in an additional 2100 damage per minute, or ~35 DPS, which is roughly a 30-45% increase in DPS, depending on who's numbers you listen to.  I'm going to guess that not even you really feel a 30-45% increase in DPS is "pathetic". </p><p>Even then, just to get that maximum DPS value, you had to spend a minimum of 8 points boosting your intelligence to do so.  That's a LOT of additional DPS from your regular spells as well.  You should SEE what a Strike does to undead when you've got well over 200 Intelligence.</p><p>However, when all is sai and done, we're not the best class for soloing.  I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it:  Templars are a relatively low DPS class.  We've always been a relatively low DPS class.  It's quite likely that we're always going to be a low DPS class.  Please quote this, bookmark it, and refer to it often if need be.  In two years, I'll requote myself saying this when folks are complaining that Tier 11 Templars are only pulling down 300 DPS and Furies are pulling 2-3 times as much.  I wish I had quotes from the old Beta forums where I was saying this over 1 1/2 years ago. </p><p>If you want to argue that Furies do more damage than Templars, then you're going to win.  I can't argue that fact.  I've never argued that fact.  I've always stated - long before Live Update 13, mind you - that Furies do more damage than Templars. </p><p>Honestly, I'm just going to start cutting and pasting old responses on this.  It's all been said before:</p><ul><li>In the old world:  Furies do more damage than Templars</li></ul><p>That was true in November 2004.  It was true in December as well.  It was also true in January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, and September of 2005.  Then Live Update 13 happened and HOLY COW:</p><ul><li>In the new world:  Furies do more damage than Templars</li></ul><p><em>Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.</em>  Imagine that.  :smileyindifferent:</p><p>This doesn't mean Templars gaining 30 DPS from one new spell line is a bad thing.  It doesn't make a 20-50 DPS increase "pathetic".  It's only "pathetic" when you start looking over that fence at everyone else. </p><p> </p><hr></blockquote><p>You still never answered his question. Finally how come you won't admit that balancing an Archetype especially the two Main Archetypes that aren't based on Damage. Healing and Tank is more then just balancing their main job. They managed to do that fairly well with LU13. Unfrotunately they didn't for whatever reason consider balancing out DPS among the archetype. When they increased the Healing of the rest of classes to bring them more inline with their job they should have then finished the job and brought the Templar Damage up to balance out the archetype.</p><p>What my feeling is that originally before LU13 the archetype was balanced much better then it is now. Yes Templar was much better at their primary job then others but the others did more damage to compensate. Then they addressed that unfortunately they didn't finish the job by bridging the gap between the amount of damage the priest classes does.</p><p>Overall this is the biggest failing I see with LU13 they only dealed with the primary job of the Healer and Tank classes and not then adjusted the classes that already did the job well upward in their DPS to offset the fact that they didn't have the huge advantage they had before.</p><p> </p>

[Eriol]

Thanks missionarymarr for "getting it" right in your first sentence.And Kendricke, in case you're having problems with what to address from that former post (and not just re-state your argument again without refuting anything), here it is (emphasis added):<blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:However, as I stated, the central point of what would be accepted if Furies never existed - that low damage is the trade-off for healing - is now gone. We are simply less capable for no consistent reason. There now exists a double-standard.So Ken, while you have a point that if Furies weren't here that we would probably be more accepting, <b>the fact that they DO exist show that the penalties themselves are unjustified</b>, and we are merely less of a class than them, and not merely focused differently.<hr></blockquote>Still read the rest, as it addresses what you said about what would happen if Furies were never around, but these are the statements that need to be addressed directly. The only refutation I can see is that Furies are in fact overpowered, and if so, then I expect you to be jumping wholeheartedly on the "Nerf Furies" bandwagon to remain consistent. I'm not on that one though.Edit: typo fix<p>Message Edited by Eriol on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:39 PM</span></p>

[StrollingWolf]

<div></div><div></div><div><p><span>I would like to mention that people need to stop telling others what's wrong with their wording/posting styles and stay on topic without trying to get reactions out of people.</span></p><p><span></span> </p><p><span>Do not</span><span> attempt to call out other players in your posts because you think you have masterfully refuted an idea presented. It will only degenerate threads into bickering, name calling and such. Try to discuss topics not each other. This thread is getting rather heated and comments are becoming pointed at each other. I will lock this thread next time I have to visit it.</span></p><p><span></span> </p><p><span>In no way is it constructive or helpful to point out how you feel another poster's wording fails to refute something you've said. Discuss the points presented, not each other.<font color="#000000"></font></span></p></div><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p>Message Edited by StrollingWolf on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:58 PM</span></p>

[Caethre]

<div></div>OOC.<blockquote><font size="2"></font><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><p><font size="2">Honestly, I'm just going to start cutting and pasting old responses on this.  It's all been said before:</font></p><ul><li><font size="2">In the old world:  Furies do more damage than Templars</font></li></ul><ul><li><font size="2">In the new world:  Furies do more damage than Templars</font></li></ul><font size="2"></font><hr></blockquote><p><font size="2">And now I will repeat the response to that, I think, for the seventh time now, using your format.</font></p><ul><li><font size="2">In the old world:  Templars were FAR FAR better healers than Furies</font></li></ul><ul><li><font size="2">In the new world:  Templars are equal healers to Furies.</font></li></ul><p><font size="2">The balance, as WE see it (regardless of what you think), was that before LU13, we were real clerics, far better healers than other priests, and that was the balancing point to being worse DPS by far. And there is no point trotting out YET AGAIN how that "was not intended" according to some note that was never implemented, that was how it actually was for 9 months, and that was what balanced WAS based on as far as we were concerned, it is historical fact.</font></p><p><font size="4" color="#ffff00">However, your constant referencing to pre-LU13 is continuing to be totally irrelevant by this point. Pre-LU13 is ancient history.We are where we are now (both points proven on these boards) :-</font></p><ul><li><font size="4" color="#ffff00">Healing - Furies and Templars are approximately equal</font></li><li><font size="4" color="#ffff00">Damage and everything else needed in small groups - Furies are 3X stronger than Templars.</font></li></ul><p><font size="4" color="#ffff00">Results :-</font></p><ul><li><font size="4" color="#ffff00">Furies gain XP solo three times faster</font></li><li><font size="4" color="#ffff00">Furies complete writs solo three times faster</font></li><li><font size="4" color="#ffff00">Furies complete quests solo three times faster</font></li><li><font size="4" color="#ffff00">Furies duo with class X (any class) to do any of the above typically twice as fast</font></li><li><font size="4" color="#ffff00">Furies in all XP groups on normal content (non-hardcore, "quest" or "easy" content) - help their groups complete whatever it is faster, usually much faster</font></li><li><font size="4" color="#ffff00">Balance - there isn't any. Templars are in the cold, effectively broken in these settings.</font></li></ul><p><font size="4" color="#ffff00">All these points are also proven by parsing in solo and small group settings.</font></p><p><font size="4" color="#ffff00">These are not opinions, they are facts.</font></p><p><font size="4" color="#ffff00">If your opinion is "Well tough luck, Templars are only meant to be for hardcore players", then so be it, we will disagree, and vehemently, until SOE confirm such, which I would not expect them to be doing.</font></p><p><font size="4" color="#ffff00"></font> </p>

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>StrollingWolf wrote:In no way is it constructive or helpful to point out how you feel another poster's wording fails to refute something you've said. Discuss the points presented, not each other.<hr></blockquote>That is however, exactly the point: you can't have a discussion if one side simply repeats their position <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseum">Ad Nauseum</a> (read the wiki link if you don't know what that is). And that's all Kendricke's doing.You want positive discussion, as do I, but discussion is impossible if logical responses addressing issues are not given. Repeating oneself over and over helps nothing with the discussion.

[StrollingWolf]

<div></div>I am not going to debate. Just don't poke and I won't lock/delete.

[kenji]

<div></div><div><p><a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/view_profile?user.id=40346"><span>quetzaqotl</span></a> wrote:</p><p>Thats your personal interpretation heres the <strong>official</strong> new (as per lu19) class description:</p><p>Fury:</p><p><a target="_blank" href="http://everquest2.station.sony.com/en/main.vm#professionFury"><font color="#ffcc33">http://everquest2.station.sony.com/en/main.vm#professionFury</font></a></p><p>hopefully i get it right. the class description hasnt mention that Fury should enhance allies' defense but themselves, hasnt mention that Fury able to cure (effects).</p><p>so....why gives them these abilities? they dun even follow the descriptions, why bother to discuss?</p></div><p>Message Edited by kenjiso on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:13 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by kenjiso on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:13 PM</span></p>

[Diapause]

<div>Mod, do me a favor before you lock this thread, sticky Caethre synopsis of our issues. That is pretty much the problem in a nutshell.</div><div> </div><div>'nuff said</div>

[StrollingWolf]

<div></div>It appears she already has a thread stickied on the subject. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Robert2005]

<div></div><p>Frightful Feast Quest; part of Peacock Series.   Yeah yeah yeah; labeled heroic so tell that to every other class in the game thats in Living Tombs solo'ing this thing so they don't have to stand around waiting for respawns for group members.</p><p>Mess of mid to low level 50s characters have blown past me in this series; I just deadlocked several times trying to kill a 52^^ (I -am- 60 and the troub, bruiser, fury that all solo'd them before me killed them in less then a minute and they're were L54 to L56)... so if they can solo them why the hell can't I when I'm L60?  They're a healer class target and I hit them with my super uber master smite T6 nuke for 450 (they're undead.. honestly I've never actually noticed increased DPS against undead.  It's damned small) then they heal for 600.  I hit them for 250 with my other uber leet nuke and they heal for 600.  Then I wittle them down again; they heal again; I'm dead and oop about the same time (of-course).  Can't get them under 1/2. </p><p>That's a five minute fight that any class but ours (and the other slightly less [Removed for Content] priests) can solo at mid 50 in under a minute.</p><p>That's Bull[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].</p><p>It needs fixing.</p><p>There is no damned defensible arguement for the current status quo.</p><p>It's been... 5 months now?  I think maybe that's enough patience on our part.</p><p>Even when Furies were "broken" heal wise they were extremely powerful small group, solo, quest.  Then nine months after they've all capped they get to be uber in all aspects of the game.  Worked out really well for them.</p><p>Stupid of me to try to do a quest again tbh.  /delete_all_quests to hell with trying to get prismatics</p><p>If I healed better per power spent I'd win since I could outlast him (pre LU13 situation and I dealt with it)</p><p>If I DPS'd better I could kill'em like every other class including Furies does.</p><p>Enough enough enough.  I am SO close to /delete templar</p><p> </p><p> </p>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote>MadisonPark wrote:I am unfamiliar as to when the champion was ever "ridiculously easy" for a templar. I recall multiple threads for advice on how to handle the champion. As well, I recall, even being a well equipped (at the time) templar defeating him with only a portion of my health and no power.  Unless of course you meant ridiculously hard, which would make more sense.<hr></blockquote>Well I have never lost to the champion. Exept with my monk. With my templar, the champion was easy (easy because I had no trouble at winning it) and became even more so when I got Screaming Mace. After LU13, I have fought him once with my templar and I hated that fight, he really didn't offer any resistance but the fight just took long. Even with my monk he became ridiculously easy. Needless to say that revamping that encounter took all the fun from it.</span><div></div>

[Robert2005]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote>MadisonPark wrote:I am unfamiliar as to when the champion was ever "ridiculously easy" for a templar. I recall multiple threads for advice on how to handle the champion. As well, I recall, even being a well equipped (at the time) templar defeating him with only a portion of my health and no power.  Unless of course you meant ridiculously hard, which would make more sense.<hr></blockquote>Well I have never lost to the champion. Exept with my monk. With my templar, the champion was easy (easy because I had no trouble at winning it) and became even more so when I got Screaming Mace. After LU13, I have fought him once with my templar and I hated that fight, he really didn't offer any resistance but the fight just took long. Even with my monk he became ridiculously easy. Needless to say that revamping that encounter took all the fun from it.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p>The champion was absolutely positively never ridiculously easy for a Templar.  Curious where that silliness came from.  Had to use a strategy to burn him down.  I honestly don't know how hard he is now but I've heard harder since the only strat that would work for us before was Tier 1 and 2 nukes to trigger HOs and use the mana for healing self.  Now we can't do that so... I dunno how to kill him now.   Will have to mess with it some time.  I killed him quite a few times but was always one save spell away from death.  And that was after 10 or 12 times getting killed to figure out how to do it.  Not easy at all.</p><p> </p><p> </p>

[Timaarit]

Most classes <i>needed</i> a strategy for him. That was what made it fun. I never found it with my monk but got it right with my templar from the very beginning. Now it has been nerfed so badly that is is no longer fun.As analogy, tell me any one solo mob in game that actually reguires strategy. Also tell me that if this imaginary mob is unbeatable by 4 classes out of 24, how would nerfing that mob improve the game compared to upping the 4 classes so that they could defeat it too.<div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>StrollingWolf wrote:<div></div>I am not going to debate. Just don't poke and I won't lock/delete.<hr></blockquote>Does this mean you can troll and flame as much as you want if you dont direct it to any particular person? Because that is what seems to be happening. You can prevent this by taking eveyones complains about certain posts with equal seriousness. If people flame a post(er), it is pretty certain that the original post(er) is a flamebait(er). If you don't edit that post too, you will se frustrated people making pokes and personal attacks.</span><div></div>

[StarryEyedElf]

<div></div><p>Timaarit,</p><p>I think that StrollingWolf was very explicit in what he said. It is still not up for debate. There is a whole serious of people here who have complaints made against them, not just one person.</p><p>If one of us comes back here, it is only for the purpose of locking this thread. And yes guys, I'm as sick of saying that as you are of seeing it.</p>

[Timaarit]

Sigh.<div></div>

[SenorPhrog]

<span><blockquote><hr>Caethre wrote:<div></div>OOC.<blockquote><p></p><hr>Raijinn Thunderguard wrote:<p>I'm not really one to comment on game design decisions as I'm not the one making those choices, we have some of the best folks in the business doing that.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Thank you for coming back sir!</p><p>Since you are the Community Relations representative and not a game designer, your first point is fair, and judging by most of the EQ and EQII content (and I've been a player over the two for over six years), I'd agree with your second point too.</p><p>However, you know we really are seeking an answer to these questions from those who are indeed making those decisions.</p><p>Statements have been made at LU13 about the design concept that all priests are meant to fulfil the same basic role in a group (the primary healer) to an equally valid extent. However, given this statement, would it not also be fair to have all priests able to contribute in other less healing-intensive settings (such as when soloing and in small groups like duos and trios) on an equal basis to other priests? Would it not be fair to have, for example, Furies and Templars, able to solo approximately as well as eachother?</p><p>This has been the heart of the main cause of all this feedback from so many of us now for many months. I know you cannot answer the question, but I also know, that you know a man who can. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>First I have to applaud Raijinn for having the gumption to post over here.    He sees and hears a lot more than most people think he does, so he's fully aware of the drama we've had.  His points are both completely valid.  His job doesn't entail design and development, it involves helping manage the community and feedback.  From my understanding not only does he not play a Templar, but if his beta character is any reflection he doesn't even play a healer.   Why would his opinion be so valuable?Your question has lingered since LU#13 Caethre, and I don't necessarily see it as a bad one, but given that sweeping changes weren't made to Cleric DPS I think we've got our answer.    The achievement points will hopefully help a little in that department.</span><div></div>

[Nari]

Which is why I asked Raijin a question about his company, something I sure hope he knows something about.<div></div>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:Which is why I asked Raijin a question about his company, something I sure hope he knows something about.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Actually, unless I'm mistaken, you asked him what he thought the company's position on Templars was.  I realize I may be nitpicking here, but ultimately speaking, you're still asking him about Templars, albeit in a more official form.</p><p>In the respect, I have to agree with Radar-X here in his assessment on what Raijinn's area of expertise is. </p><p> </p>

[Andu]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Radar-X wrote:<span><blockquote><p>This has been the heart of the main cause of all this feedback from so many of us now for many months. <strong><u>I know you cannot answer the question, but I also know, that you know a man who can. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></u></strong></p><p></p><hr></blockquote>First I have to applaud Raijinn for having the gumption to post over here.    He sees and hears a lot more than most people think he does, so he's fully aware of the drama we've had.  His points are both completely valid.  His job doesn't entail design and development, it involves helping manage the community and feedback.  From my understanding not only does he not play a Templar, but if his beta character is any reflection he doesn't even play a healer.   <strong>Why would his opinion be so valuable?</strong></span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Honestly, I swear you people just argue for the sake of it or something.</p><p>Yes Ken, it was nit-picking. Please for all that is holy will you stop.</p>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><p>I'm sorry, I was responding on 3devious's previous post, not Caethre's. </p><p>Yes, you are correct that Caethre was asking Raijinn to ask someone else in SOE to post here.  However, 3devious was asking Raijinn was the official SOE position on Templars was - not about the company itself.  Perhaps it's a minor point to others, but it wasn't to me. </p><p>Regardless, I agree with Radar-X on this.  Raijinn's personal opinion isn't going to matter.  Raijinn HAS stated previously that he's aware of the issues facing Templars and that he'd bring those concerns to the SOE team.  He's already said that, which is exactly what he's being asked to do again.  So, either we don't believe he did as he said, or we just want him to say he did it again.  In another month or two, will we again demand the same of him?</p><p>I'm of the opinion, as it seems to me Radar-X is, that the actions of SOE (or rather inactions, if you prefer) seem to speak rather loudly on the subject of whether or not they feel Templars require much overhaul at this time.  It's entirely possible that they've been working on some super secret underground Bionic Templar project they can't speak out on that we'll see sometime in the future, but for the time being at least, we're simply providing feedback and hoping. </p><p>I can understand that it's frustrating to some that there is a perceived silence on the subject.  However, I can also understand why it is they may not be speaking at all (or at least, yet).  Based on previous posts and even in listed forum rules, the developers tend to avoid direct demands for attention or response.  They've stated they tend to stay out of personal bickering or negative attacks - especially when the attacks are directed at them directly (which happens far more often within this forum than perhaps we wish to acknowledge).  They've stated they tend to remain silent if they have nothing new to say (which could very well be the case here).</p><p>I don't think the issue is that they aren't speaking up on the subject.  I truly think the issue, for many here at least, is that they aren't saying what many want to hear.  If they DID flat out say, <em>we're happy overall with Templars as is, and we're simply continuing to watch the situation </em>(as some here have requested they do), then I believe there would be an uproar.  You'd see Templars announcing cancellations left, right, and center.  You'd see mass petition style threads.  I believe you'd see plenty of "oh yeah" style threads which would try to prove to the developers why they are wrong to feel they way there are if they posted such a thing. </p><p>At the last FanFaire, it was joked at one point over drinks that SOE could send every player a bag of money and there would still be complaints on the forums about it.  Call me cynical, but I believe it.  No matter what SOE says on this subject, it's going to upset the community - be it Templars or others upset about Templars.  Sometimes, it's almost best to stay silent (a tact I admit I am poor at <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  ).</p><p> </p>

[CoLD MeTaL]

<div></div><div></div><p>Nevermind I don't want in on this.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by CoLD MeTaL on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:35 AM</span></p>

[SenorPhrog]

<span><blockquote><hr>Anduri wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Radar-X wrote:<span><blockquote><p>This has been the heart of the main cause of all this feedback from so many of us now for many months. <strong><u>I know you cannot answer the question, but I also know, that you know a man who can. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></u></strong></p><p></p><hr></blockquote>First I have to applaud Raijinn for having the gumption to post over here.    He sees and hears a lot more than most people think he does, so he's fully aware of the drama we've had.  His points are both completely valid.  His job doesn't entail design and development, it involves helping manage the community and feedback.  From my understanding not only does he not play a Templar, but if his beta character is any reflection he doesn't even play a healer.   <strong>Why would his opinion be so valuable?</strong></span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Honestly, I swear you people just argue for the sake of it or something.</p><p>Yes Ken, it was nit-picking. Please for all that is holy will you stop.</p><hr></blockquote>First of all, I don't appreciate being referred to as "you people."   If there is something profoundly wrong with what I said please feel free to point it out.  I asked why Raijinn's opinion is so important?  I don't ask an IBM sales rep why their stock isn't doing as well, because that's not what he does for a living.  Sure it's possible he might be in the know, but wouldn't it make more sense to ask someone in marketing or finance?I'm still looking for the arguement....maybe you can help me.</span><div></div>

[Robert2005]

That's certainly true Ken.  But I also believe --1)  The majority of Templars want to know if there's hope or if our Alts really truly are our new mains.2)  Templar's want to know why SOE thinks we're OK.  Some reasoning of some kind (and for the love of god please don't give me your reasoning again).  Just spit it out -- there's already an uproar it won't get any worse and atleast we'd know where they stand.That's all really.  I think you're being disingeneous thinking there's some holy grail vow of silence to bring about peace and goodwill throughout all the land (<-- check it out 1 sentence that says what you took five paragraphs to say).Once we all know that what we think is irrelevant (those of us that want some Templar help) we can get over it and move on instead of being stuck here in limbo debating amongst ourselves.For me; I really want/need to know if I should just stop trying to keep my Templar geared up; stop trying to do those quests to get some decent regent gear (that everyone else can solo but I have to beg for DPS help to get -- HILARIOUS if a L24 Fury wasn't resisted they could actually be my DPS assistance at 60) -- and just focus completely on leveling and gearing my Alt.So for me it's a question of which toon is really my priority.  Every time I login it's a personal internal debate and it's getting tiresome and annoying.Should I be leveling my Wizard to get to T7 or gearing my Templar?  I truly want to know.If Templar is truly "working as intended" I should be leveling my Wizard.<div></div>

[thomasza]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>StarryEyedElf wrote:<div></div><p>Timaarit,</p><p>I think that StrollingWolf was very explicit in what he said. It is still not up for debate. There is a whole serious of people here who have complaints made against them, not just one person.</p><p>If one of us comes back here, it is only for the purpose of locking this thread. And yes guys, I'm as sick of saying that as you are of seeing it.</p><hr></blockquote>You could make the templar forums read-only <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> (and yes this is just a little joke)

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:That's certainly true Ken.  But I also believe --1)  The majority of Templars want to know if there's hope or if our Alts really truly are our new mains.2)  Templar's want to know why SOE thinks we're OK.  Some reasoning of some kind (and for the love of god please don't give me your reasoning again).  Just spit it out -- there's already an uproar it won't get any worse and atleast we'd know where they stand.That's all really.  I think you're being disingeneous thinking there's some holy grail vow of silence to bring about peace and goodwill throughout all the land (<-- check it out 1 sentence that says what you took five paragraphs to say).Once we all know that what we think is irrelevant (those of us that want some Templar help) we can get over it and move on instead of being stuck here in limbo debating amongst ourselves.For me; I really want/need to know if I should just stop trying to keep my Templar geared up; stop trying to do those quests to get some decent regent gear (that everyone else can solo but I have to beg for DPS help to get -- HILARIOUS if a L24 Fury wasn't resisted they could actually be my DPS assistance at 60) -- and just focus completely on leveling and gearing my Alt.So for me it's a question of which toon is really my priority.  Every time I login it's a personal internal debate and it's getting tiresome and annoying.Should I be leveling my Wizard to get to T7 or gearing my Templar?  I truly want to know.If Templar is truly "working as intended" I should be leveling my Wizard.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>"Assume the worst, while hoping for the best."</p><p>One possible "worst":  If SOE announced today that not only were Templars fine as is, but perhaps too powerful and we'd be getting several nerfs, how would you react?  If you say you would no longer play your Templar, then that's something to think about doing.</p><p>You can obviously hope for changes while playing, but if you're not prepared to face the worst, then perhaps it's time to switch classes.  I don't say this flippantly, either.  I fully understand the gravity and emotion that comes with changing a primary class.  However, I also understand the desire to enjoy the class you play.</p><p>If you're not happy with the class as is, then you're not likely to be happier if no changes occur within the next several months, correct?  When in doubt, assume status quo at the very least.  Then make your choice based on that.  By all means, come back and check in to see how the class is doing.  Read sites like Ten Ton Hammer or Caster's Realm or other fansites to see what the developers are telling us.  But at the end of the day, without any news or announcements or patch notes to go on, you can't just assume that changes are coming. </p><p>If you think the class is fundamently fine, but could use some adjustments or tweaks, then you're probably safe to continue playing the class.  If you're generally happy logging into your Templar, then you're probably fine to continue doing so.  If, however, you find yourself cringing, or feeling obligated, or otherwise just generally not liking the class as it is right now - you're not very likely to spontaneously enjoy doing so over the next few months.</p><p>If changes occur down the line, then you still have the character in either case.  Otherwise, you're at least enjoying your entertainment and recreation - which is really what should be most important.</p><p> </p>

[Robert2005]

The key word you used in all that is obligation.I have an obligation to be the best healer possible for my team.  That means arduous time consuming ridiculous quests (as a Templar) to get decent gear.  It's painful -- and the disparity is so significant compared to other priests it defies my intellect to think SOE isn't fixing it.I honest to god login every day thinking there may be an annonucement "Templar DPS increased 2.5 times" or "Cleric healing increased 30% to compensate for priest DPS disparity".  ROFL.  Yeah; it's silly.  But the sad part is those 2 statements make more common sense then the current status quo!So ... I have a hard time accepting I need to switch mains.  I need SOE to tell me what THEY think.  They told everyone what they thought before LU13 why do they refuse to give their position now?  (that question is for SOE)Until I know for a fact what the situation is and can commit to a specific direction I have an obligation to be the best healer possible for my team.Hence all the forum drama....

[Andu]

<div></div><p>Sorry Radar, I wasn't trying to get at you in particular. If you glance over the rest of this thread it's just one long pointless argument yet again. Just frustrated that yet another thread on this forum has decended into the usual abyss.</p><p>As for your post, perhaps you quoted the wrong person accidentally. Caethre never asked for Raijinn's opinion, just that he ask the person who actually does know to come here and shed some light on the situation. I thought what you said was perhaps directed at the wrong person, or that you had picked an argument without understanding what was said.</p><p>In any event it's not important - I just agree with Caethre's post and fervently hope someone at SOE takes the initiative and comes here with some inidication of their thnking behind the class at the moment.</p>

[Nari]

*sigh*<span><blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:Raijin,Some of us are a little more interested in <u><i>your</i></u> thoughts on the matter.  Some of this bickering could be decreased by <font color="#ff0000">a definitive response about the vision your company has for templars</font> because there seems to be a disconnect.  If your vision is to "get Nicole's 14.99," you'll probably get it anyway, but I am willing to guess that other players might want a little more detail.<div></div><hr></blockquote>This should be documented somewhere at SOE.  Anyone who has the authority to speak to the community should be given this information.  I know my organization's vision.  Why is that so hard?</span><div></div>

[CoLD MeTaL]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:The key word you used in all that is obligation.I have an obligation to be the best healer possible for my team.  That means arduous time consuming ridiculous quests (as a Templar) to get decent gear.  It's painful -- and the disparity is so significant compared to other priests it defies my intellect to think SOE isn't fixing it.I honest to god login every day thinking there may be an annonucement "Templar DPS increased 2.5 times" or "Cleric healing increased 30% to compensate for priest DPS disparity".  ROFL.  Yeah; it's silly.  But the sad part is those 2 statements make more common sense then the current status quo!So ... I have a hard time accepting I need to switch mains.  I need SOE to tell me what THEY think.  They told everyone what they thought before LU13 why do they refuse to give their position now?  (that question is for SOE)Until I know for a fact what the situation is and can commit to a specific direction I have an obligation to be the best healer possible for my team.Hence all the forum drama....<hr></blockquote><p>I think they aren't going to tell you because they don't know.</p><p>just like 2 major imbued ring changes in as many weeks.</p><p>They are guessing from what I have witnessed so far.</p><p>I also don't see that they view communication as an obligation.</p><p>just my opinion yours may vary.</p>

[Caethre]

<div></div>OOC.<blockquote><p></p><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>One possible "worst":  If SOE announced today that not only were Templars fine as is, but perhaps too powerful and we'd be getting several nerfs, how would you react?  If you say you would no longer play your Templar, then that's something to think about doing.</p><hr></blockquote><p>You do not mention the other option available. Feedback!</p><p>Feedback detail, facts, parses, data, observations, feelings, opinions, everything. And keep on giving feedback whilst the issues remain. This means, never ever stopping, and gathering any support there is, and reporting back all pertinanent data to SOE showing what is wrong and why.</p><p>SOE care about their game. They can't listen to every single individual, obviously, but when something is so out of whack that tens even hundreds of players are all reporting the same thing, with unhappiness and calling for the same changes, even if SOE at first do not see the issue, or maybe do not even wholly agree, if enough players are unhappy for long enough and are consistent in reporting a problem, with data and observations, I really believe they DO care, and they will eventually correct the problem. Because the alternative is, if carried over into enough areas and hurting enough players of enough playstyles, a dieing game. Since I think EQII is overall a really excellent game, which I enjoy playing apart from regarding this imbalance issue, that is not something I want anymore than SOE do.</p><p>Now perhaps a few fellow players do not see it, or even oppose it, but that will not stop the rest of us continuing to feedback on what we see as a major problem. Get used to the idea, there are going to be many many Templars saying the same things pretty much for the lifetime of this game until these major imbalance issues are addressed. Your individual opinion on either the value or the accuracy of such feedbck is, in the end, irrelevant.</p><p> </p>

[Nari]

<span><blockquote><hr>CoLD MeTaL wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr><hr></blockquote><p>I think they aren't going to tell you because they don't know.</p><p>just like 2 major imbued ring changes in as many weeks.</p><p>They are guessing from what I have witnessed so far.</p><p>I also don't see that they view communication as an obligation.</p><p>just my opinion yours may vary.</p><hr></blockquote>"I don't have a plan yet" is an acceptable answer for me.  For as often as I say it, I certainly can't be [Removed for Content] at anyone else for being in the same boat.</span><div></div>

[SenorPhrog]

<span><blockquote><hr>Anduri wrote:<div></div><p>Sorry Radar, I wasn't trying to get at you in particular. If you glance over the rest of this thread it's just one long pointless argument yet again. Just frustrated that yet another thread on this forum has decended into the usual abyss.</p><p>As for your post, perhaps you quoted the wrong person accidentally. Caethre never asked for Raijinn's opinion, just that he ask the person who actually does know to come here and shed some light on the situation. I thought what you said was perhaps directed at the wrong person, or that you had picked an argument without understanding what was said.</p><p>In any event it's not important - I just agree with Caethre's post and fervently hope someone at SOE takes the initiative and comes here with some inidication of their thnking behind the class at the moment.</p><hr></blockquote>I understand and I appreciate you clarifying.  There is a ton of frustration and it feels sometimes like I'm watching a political battle in Congress.  Honestly?  I see merit to Caethre's arguement but ONLY because I see the trends of the MMO market and realize that the option for solo play is vital.    It's hard to ignore the raiders, and then you have the dedicated "clerics from EQ1" who have stuck it out and have opinions too.   Either way, Raijinn really isn't going to be able to answer much but I do appreciate him taking the time to answer.   He's a good Mod.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Caethre wrote:You do not mention the other option available. Feedback!<p>Feedback detail, facts, parses, data, observations, feelings, opinions, everything. And keep on giving feedback whilst the issues remain. This means, never ever stopping, and gathering any support there is, and reporting back all pertinanent data to SOE showing what is wrong and why.</p><p>SOE care about their game. They can't listen to every single individual, obviously, but when something is so out of whack that tens even hundreds of players are all reporting the same thing, with unhappiness and calling for the same changes, even if SOE at first do not see the issue, or maybe do not even wholly agree, if enough players are unhappy for long enough and are consistent in reporting a problem, with data and observations, I really believe they DO care, and they will eventually correct the problem. Because the alternative is, if carried over into enough areas and hurting enough players of enough playstyles, a dieing game. Since I think EQII is overall a really excellent game, which I enjoy playing apart from regarding this imbalance issue, that is not something I want anymore than SOE do.</p><p>Now perhaps a few fellow players do not see it, or even oppose it, but that will not stop the rest of us continuing to feedback on what we see as a major problem. Get used to the idea, there are going to be many many Templars saying the same things pretty much for the lifetime of this game until these major imbalance issues are addressed. Your individual opinion on either the value or the accuracy of such feedbck is, in the end, irrelevant.</p><p></p><hr></blockquote><p>I agree with that.  No, really.  I do. </p><p>I'm a big fan of feedback.  It's always my first option.  For the love of all that's blue and fuzzy (to steal a phrase), it's pretty much all I do, both here and elsewhere.  I track data and provide feedback on improving processes.  At the same time, I try to use a realistic eye (not rose colored, but dark and dreary either) to go over analysis of strengths and weaknesses, as well as historical data, empirical/anecdotal observations, and other personal experience.</p><p>I don't care if you and every other Templar continue to speak out.  I've never had a personal problem with your ability to express your opinion in a civil manner.  I don't see silencing as a first, second, or really any option.  I'd prefer to see everyone able to come to the table to express views rather than take out frustrations on each other.  Silencing dissent is never an answer I'd advocate, so I have no problem "getting used to the idea" that Templars will continue to express frustrations.  It's a story as old as communication itself, really.  Where this is something to talk about, someone will have complaints.  I'm used to that idea and have been for some time.</p><p>However, it's still off-point from what I'm trying to say.  Don't get me wrong - I think you're making good points.  It's just that your points aren't really in regards to what I was trying to say here just then. </p><p>Basically, what I'm saying here is that if you're generally happy or generally unhappy with a class, that's not likely to change from day to day.  I'm not talking about loving a class except for X.  I'm talking about those players who outright don't like the class - where the "love" is the exception and not the norm.  If you really aren't enjoying the class - I mean, just not liking it - then why play that class? </p><p>Sure, keep posting feedback.  Post the same feedback over and over for months on end if you think it will help.  That's fine.  Just keep it civil and I'll likely just post my own thoughts and either stick around in the discussion, move on, or just ignore it outright if I don't feel I have anything I want to add. </p><p>However, why keep putting yourself up to something you don't enjoy just to prove a point?  That's just confusing to me.  If you don't like the class as is, then change it up.  Play a different class.  You get at LEAST 6 character slots just by paying for a basic subscription.  That's five other chances to find a class you do like before you have to worry about deleting one of them. </p><p>If you hate the class, can't stand the class, dislike logging into the class, or otherwise feel the class is broken as is...then let it be.  Many of us generally are overall pleased with the class (but continue to push for changes even then).  I can see why we keep logging in - it's fun for us.  We get something out of that log-in that's not just politically motivated or obligatory in nature.  For those who apparantly can't stand the class, perhaps it's time to move on and keep posting feedback from afar. </p><p>Don't delete the Templar.  Just keep it on a back burner.  Keep checking updates.  Keep checking interviews.  Keep watching patch notes.  When changes happen, log in and see if you like them.  Otherwise, try something you do like.  If you can't find a class you like, then try switching up the game.</p><p>I love Everquest 2.  I love playing as a Templar in Everquest 2.  That doesn't mean I think everyone likes playing as a Templar or even that they like Everquest 2.  It's simply not going to be the game for everyone.  This simply isn't going to be the class for everyone.</p><p>I'm sure things will change.  That's the only real constant anywhere, but even moreso within MMOG's.  However, to force yourself to play a class you just outright dislike while waiting for that change?  I have to wonder why?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:<span>"I don't have a plan yet" is an acceptable answer for me. </span><hr></blockquote><p>...and it's not acceptable for many within these forums.  If SOE posted that for Templars, you can't possibly tell me that you think that would be well-received across the board here, can you?</p><p> </p>

[Caethre]

<div></div>OOC.<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><p>If you hate the class, can't stand the class, dislike logging into the class, or otherwise feel the class is broken as is...then let it be. </p><hr></blockquote><p>I may have said before, there is more to a character than just the class. Perhaps that is the roleplayer in me speaking, but I can hate the current balance situation for my favorite character's adventurer class, but still love her as a character. The distinction is important.</p><p>That said, my signature shows that I do not only play a Templar.</p><p> </p>

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:"I don't have a plan yet" is an acceptable answer for me.<hr></blockquote><p>...and it's not acceptable for many within these forums. If SOE posted that for Templars, you can't possibly tell me that you think that would be well-received across the board here, can you?</p><hr></blockquote>Acceptable? Not really. But better than nothing. Many of us are hanging on with the <i>hope</i> of getting fixed. For whatever reason, we used to have an affection for this class. But after a myriad of changes, the REASONS behind the affection are gone, while some "residual" affection is left. Hence we stick it out with the hope of being fixed.And that's where the "we have no idea" response would help. It would help people let go. We'd know "there really isn't any appreciable hope" and could move on to other classes, or quite entirely.Which is really why it's not going to come. They want to make sure that the hope remains, and thus we'll keep paying. If they come with nothing, there'll be a firestorm, then a bunch of quitting, then a peaceful forum because everybody that held out hope is now gone. In the end, all they gain is a peaceful forum and less customers. Now they get to keep dissatisfied customers and a flaming forum, which is preferrable, as they still get our money.

[Robert2005]

<span><blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:"I don't have a plan yet" is an acceptable answer for me.<hr></blockquote><p>...and it's not acceptable for many within these forums. If SOE posted that for Templars, you can't possibly tell me that you think that would be well-received across the board here, can you?</p><hr></blockquote>Acceptable? Not really. But better than nothing. Many of us are hanging on with the <i>hope</i> of getting fixed. For whatever reason, we used to have an affection for this class. But after a myriad of changes, the REASONS behind the affection are gone, while some "residual" affection is left. Hence we stick it out with the hope of being fixed.And that's where the "we have no idea" response would help. It would help people let go. We'd know "there really isn't any appreciable hope" and could move on to other classes, or quite entirely.Which is really why it's not going to come. They want to make sure that the hope remains, and thus we'll keep paying. If they come with nothing, there'll be a firestorm, then a bunch of quitting, then a peaceful forum because everybody that held out hope is now gone. In the end, all they gain is a peaceful forum and less customers. Now they get to keep dissatisfied customers and a flaming forum, which is preferrable, as they still get our money.<hr></blockquote>No truer words spoken in this forum.(oops; is that an /agree post? <span>:smileytongue:</span>)</span><div></div>

[Robert2005]

Some perspective.. the dev/designers are pretty much holding a dialogue with the melee classes about proc changes.  And it's not all flowers and goodwill it's every bit is angst riden over proc changes as we are about priest balance.  They seem to be holding forth quite well.So the points about why they don't do it are all invalid.  They DO.

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Caethre wrote:<div></div>OOC.<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><p>If you hate the class, can't stand the class, dislike logging into the class, or otherwise feel the class is broken as is...then let it be. </p><hr></blockquote><p>I may have said before, there is more to a character than just the class. Perhaps that is the roleplayer in me speaking, but I can hate the current balance situation for my favorite character's adventurer class, but still love her as a character. The distinction is important.</p><p>That said, my signature shows that I do not only play a Templar.</p><hr></blockquote><p>As an avid roleplayer who leads one of the few roleplay encouraged guilds on a non-roleplay server, let me just say that I can understand that as well.  (Trust me, those who've met me were very, VERY surprised that I wasn't hauling around law books, and dressed in formal scholarly robes.  I believe I just about broke Blackguard the first time he heard me utter a vulgarity over drinks.)</p><p>However, that said, my point stands.  I'm not saying to never play your Templar, or to abandon the class.  I'm not advocating you "love it or leave it" or that you be quiet about complaints or dissent.  I'm saying that as a general advice, don't do something that isn't fun...especially if you're paying for it as entertainment.  Once you've moved beyond enjoyment of an activity which is supposed to be recreation, and you find yourself unable or unwilling to stop said activity even though you aren't enjoying it, there's a problem - a very, very real problem.</p><p>I've walked away from the game before.  I've up and left my guild in the hands of my officers for days on end several times while I played on Playstation, or Dawn of War, or Planetside, or Civilization 4.  I've let them know I'm going to take a day or three off, and then I come back.  If it's more work than fun, then walk away as needed.  If the game becomes a chore, then walk away as needed.</p><p>Again, continue to feedback, complain, or cry foul (so long as it's civil).  There's nothing wrong with that, at least not by my way of thinking.  Just that I also advocate making sure your paid recreation remains as recreation.</p><p>Not every class is going to work for everyone.  Not every game will, either.  These type of games are constantly evolving.  In another six months, we might all be soloing GODS...or the game could be completely raid based.  You've got to be prepared for those possibilities in any MMOG, due to the flexible and fluid nature of the beast.  It's not a hard DVD you put into a console that's never altered once purchased.  It's a living, breathing, growing world which is going to change, evolve, and then change some more.</p><p>Keep your issues on the fire.  Keep the fire stoked.  However, at the end of the day, if you really don't like the class, perhaps it's time for something different.  For you, that's a Fury.  For Timaarit, perhaps his Monk.  For others, perhaps something completely different. </p><p>Just try to remember that a lot of us do generally like the class overall (though we wouldn't mind some changes here and there).  No, we're not in a "we are fine" brigade.  A lot of us actually don't like each other all that much, really.  However, we have ideas in common on how the game should be played and we have similar outlooks on the Templar class.  That doesn't make us a clique or some sort of forum militia.  It means we are just as passionate about the class as you and those who agree with you are.  We just happen to be passionate in different ways about different aspects of the class than you and yours.</p><p>I tire of the constant West Side Story / Outsiders atmosphere, and I keep waiting for someone to tell me that Pony Boy and Soda Pop need us at the Park on Saturday for the big Rumble with the "Furies" (yes, I like mixed metaphors).  We've got two great lists of issues at the top of the forum which come from COMPLETELY differing perspectives.  There's a great way for developers to keep an eye on the real pulse of the problems that Templars feel exist here - and they can even choose which of the two perspectives they want to read through first.  It's a benefit for them to see the two threads side by side, because they can see the issues we have in common, and the issues we don't.  It lets them see the class through both tints. </p><p>For the most part, I'm content with developer silence insofar as I'm confident they're looking over both of those threads.  I think those are good avenues for the developers to follow if they want to see the issues we all feel we have, so they don't have to delve into the various mires and verbal jousts here in the rest of the forum.</p><p> </p>

[Andu]

<span><blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:"I don't have a plan yet" is an acceptable answer for me.<hr></blockquote><p>...and it's not acceptable for many within these forums. If SOE posted that for Templars, you can't possibly tell me that you think that would be well-received across the board here, can you?</p><hr></blockquote>Acceptable? Not really. But better than nothing. Many of us are hanging on with the <i>hope</i> of getting fixed. For whatever reason, we used to have an affection for this class. But after a myriad of changes, the REASONS behind the affection are gone, while some "residual" affection is left. Hence we stick it out with the hope of being fixed.And that's where the "we have no idea" response would help. It would help people let go. We'd know "there really isn't any appreciable hope" and could move on to other classes, or quite entirely.<hr></blockquote>QFE.We have a Dev for Tradeskills (Beghn is doing well, he had a tough time filling his predecessors shoes), Quests (Owlchick is cool), Live Events, numerous Coders (Silverfrost and Illucide are v. cool) and even the odd Game Designer (Moorgard would be cool if he would show up in the class boards occasionally).  They all post on these forums and it is appreciated - there is no doubt in my mind that the EQ2 team is the best in the business in terms of communication.It is very surprising then that of all these things the one they have never got to grips with is the one thing that stirs up the most controversy - class balance. SOE should have learnt this lesson by now from the numerous mistakes they have made in the past.  The blunders on SWG in terms of class communication were painful to watch. Some of those mistakes can be seen again here, particularly in the limited dialogue that has been received by Enchanters. This is probably the reason no Dev has the big brass ones to post in this fire pit - any mistake will not go quietly unnoticed.So why they have never employed someone to concentrate solely on this remit is difficult to understand. I'm sure that Raijinn has a good grip on the issues of each class but I see little or no evidence that his feedback is ever taken on board. It must be very frustrating for him and the mods and I feel for them. Trying to bring order to this board without a meaningful contribution from the Devs is a pretty impossible task.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Anduri wrote:<span> I'm sure that Raijinn has a good grip on the issues of each class but I see little or no evidence that his feedback is ever taken on board. It must be very frustrating for him and the mods and I feel for them. Trying to bring order to this board without a meaningful contribution from the Devs is a pretty impossible task.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p>I realize we're often at loggerheads, Anduri, but with the exception of this one passage, I would agree with your post overall.</p><p>Personally, I do see evidence of changes.  I mark those changes in the Holy Books just to point out when any patch note addresses a concern - in full or in part - to any listed issue, bug, or suggestion.  After Update 20, I hope I'll get to mark a few more off.</p><p>The real problem isn't that there is no evidence feedback is being taken on board.  I think the real issue is that it's not THE fixes some of us would like to see.  It's not that there's not ways to see what it is they're working on indirectly (or even direct quotes from developers).  It's that when they don't fix or address someone's personal pet issue, that's seen as an across the board snub. </p><p>Frankly, just as any change to Shadowknights is typically ignored within this forum, so too are changes which are made even to Templars - so long as those changes are seen as "not important" to the "real issues" some of the Templars here raise.</p><p> </p><p> </p>

[Andu]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:Personally, I do see evidence of changes.  I mark those changes in the Holy Books just to point out when any patch note addresses a concern - in full or in part - to any listed issue, bug, or suggestion.  After Update 20, I hope I'll get to mark a few more off.<p>The real problem isn't that there is no evidence feedback is being taken on board.  I think the real issue is that it's not THE fixes some of us would like to see.  It's not that there's not ways to see what it is they're working on indirectly (or even direct quotes from developers).  It's that when they don't fix or address someone's personal pet issue, that's seen as an across the board snub.</p><hr></blockquote>Well, lets go through the things addressed in your list:</span><font color="#cccccc"><strike><strong>There does not appear to be a point for upgrading skill level on Sign of Weakness line</strong>Sign of Weakness duration seems to be based entirely on character level.  For example, there appears to be no variation between an Adept I and and Adept III version of the spells.</strike></font><strong><font color="#ff9900">Visible Fix in Live Update 18</font></strong><font color="#ff0000">In my opinion, the difference in duration is so marginal as to not really make any difference. It was nice to have the bug addressed but I don't think it went far enough.</font><font color="#ff0000"></font><font color="#ff0000">Incidentally, sign of weakness is a line that will remain unused by most until some sort of graphic goes in that makes its effect visible.</font><span><strike><font color="#cccccc"><strong>Atoning Fate does not always work</strong>Does not proc the group heal upon mobs death if the mob is killed by a proc of any kind, on a weapon from the weapon or a buff etc.</font></strike><strong><font color="#ff9900">Fixed in Live Update 17</font></strong></span><span><font color="#ff3300">An appreciated bug fix.</font></span><strong><strike><font color="#cccccc">Sanctuary is not upgrading properly</font></strike></strong><span><strike><font color="#cccccc">Adept I and Adept III are identical spells.  Suggestion would be to make the Adept III better by giving it a longer duration or quicker recast time.</font></strike><font color="#ff9900"><strong>Per Developers, this is working as intended.</strong></font></span><span><font color="#ff3300">The explanation was nice. However, it still makes no sense and there has been no change to the spell description in game which means countless Templars are still buying the Adept III version thinking it will upgrade</font></span><span><strike><font color="#cccccc"><strong>Unyielding Benediction does not upgrade properly to Vigilant Benediction</strong>Lower tier spell Identical to upper tier version.</font></strike><font color="#ff9900"><strong>Fixed in Live Update 18</strong></font></span><span><font color="#ff3300">Nice bug fix.</font></span><strike><font color="#cccccc"><strong>Combat resurrections require additional attention</strong>A Templar can cast a combat resurrection on a target, but has to stay in range (1 meter) till the target actually clicks yes.  During a group or raiding situation, this can be incredibly frustrating when the Templar's also trying to assist with healing.</font></strike><strong><font color="#ff9900">Fixed in Live Update 17</font></strong><span><font color="#ff3300">Nice bug fix.</font></span><strike><font color="#cccccc"><strong>Stuns don't upgrade</strong>No apparant increase in power or effect when upgrading Prostrate or Forced Submission from Apprentice to Adept versions.</font></strike><font color="#ff9900">Visible Fix in Live Update 18</font><span><font color="#ff3300">I would add the word "Barely" in front of your note. The change did not go far enough considering the cast time of the spell.</font><font color="#ff3300"></font></span><strike><font color="#cccccc"><strong>Mark Line has Inconsistent Hate Generation</strong>Reports exists indicating that Mark of Pawns does not draw hate, but Mark of Princes does.</font></strike> <strong><font color="#ff9900">Explained by</font> <font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff3300">Silverfrost</font> </font><font color="#ff9900">that neither spell draws hate specifically, but that the debuff itself or the associated heals will draw hate indirectly.</font></strong><span><font color="#ff3300">Nice to have that one explained although no actual work was needed.</font><font color="#ff3300"></font></span><font color="#ccff00"><strong>Templar (and really all other priests') DPS is significantly lower than that of Furies. </strong></font><font size="3"><font size="4"><font color="#ccff00"></font></font></font>Though Furies are now much more powerful than previously in handling healing in most situations, Templars are not more powerful relatively speaking in regards to damage output.  Though normally this would not be as great an issue due to our typically greater defense, the fact remains that due to changes to experience debt and now even shard collections, death is no longer as great a detriment as it once was...leaving Furies able to gain significantly more experience than Templars in soloing situations.  In addition, this leads to a perception that Furies are more desirable in grouping situations.<strong><font color="#ff9900">Beam of Faith/Rays of Faith now have shorter casting times per Live Update 18</font></strong><font color="#ff3300">This is the big one. I don't like the wording you have used to explain the problem but at least it is there. I presume you agree with me that the Beams of Faith change does not resolve the issue as you haven't crossed it out.</font><font color="#cccccc"><strike><strong><font color="#ff3300"></font>Reverence is not considered useful by many Templars</strong></strike></font><font color="#cccccc"><strike><strong></strong></strike></font><strike>Many Templars do not use Reverence for various reasons cited, including:  not effective enough even at higher quality (Adept III only gives back 140%); duration is not long enough (15 seconds isn't even long enough for most pulls); or just confusion over what the point/purpose of the spell is supposed to be.  Perhaps an explanation from Lockeye or another developer letting us know what the envisioned point of the spell is could help Templars figure out how the spell is supposed to be used, and we can work to come up with better solution toward its effectiveness.</strike><strong><font color="#ff9900">Reverence effectiveness increased dramatically in Live Update 18</font></strong><span><font color="#ff3300">The effectiveness was increased but it is still not very useful. Sort of thing you cast when all the other icons are greyed out (an all to common occurence) just for something to do. Compare it to Back into the Fray (it's direct equivalent) to really highlight how bad it is. I would not have crossed this one off yet until the duration is increased to something like a minute.</font><font color="#ff3300"></font></span><strike><strong><font color="#ccffff">Better Logging/Parsing Ability to Track Heals</font></strong>Currently, logs aren't showing our heals accurately enough...or it's too situational based on range or need (i.e. some spells won't show in log if no healing was performed...yet I'll see the spell effect fire off). </strike><font color="#ff9900"><strong>As of Live Update 19, it seems that all Templar spells are now parsing.  Removing this item for now, unless someone finds a spell that is not parsing.</strong></font><span><font color="#ff3300">UI Stuff, welcome but doesn't address core issues.</font>_____________________________So by my count that is:3 minor bug fixes3 things addressed but the debate over the actual usefulness of the spell still rages on1 explanation but no actual fix1 explanation where no fix was needed1 gratefully received recast reduction which is a good start but barely scratches the surfaceand a UI thing.Now, that is very helpful and I do not in any way want to suggest that the time spent by Silverfrost and Co here was not welcome. The best thing about it I think was that it at least confirms that a Dev has actually read the post and presumably Caethre's also.However, it is hardly earth shattering and it doesn't go anywhere near what is asked for by most people on this board. That being an explanation as to why most Priests are being punished for being healers by being denied sensible access to the bulk of the soloing/small group/questing game. Sure, the quests out there that cannot actually be done by Templars are next to none. However, Moorgard and Blackguard have been quite clear on their determination to remove all the things in the game that are not fun. Soloing as a Templar is not fun - it is boring - as such it conflicts directly with everything SOE seem to want to do with the game.Yet there has not been a word about this since it was raised as an issue even though we know they are aware of it."</span><span>I think the real issue is that it's not THE fixes some of us would like to see. " - you are so right when you say that. But if they are not going to fix anything else, why not just come out and say so! Stop all this needless ranting on this forum, stop all the griping in game, stop all the disappointment and frustration. At least we would then know that this is the Templar, take it or leave it. At least we could then make an informed decision.</span><span>Like Eriol said earlier, it is only hope that keeps me here now. The passion I felt for the class has long since been tarnished and in turn a lot of my passion for the game. If we could get some commentary from SOE then we could all make up our minds, play the Templar, move class or move on. These boards would return to some sort of normality. We just want some closure (hate that word) I guess.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Anduri on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">08:26 PM</span></p>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><p>Just to restate the point:</p><p> </p><blockquote><hr>Anduri wrote:<span>Now, that is very helpful and I do not in any way want to suggest that the time spent by Silverfrost and Co here was not welcome. The best thing about it I think was that it at least confirms that a Dev has actually read the post and presumably Caethre's also.<strong>However, it is hardly earth shattering and it doesn't go anywhere near what is asked for by most people on this board.</strong> That being an explanation as to why most Priests are being punished for being healers by being denied sensible access to the bulk of the soloing/small group/questing game. Sure, the quests out there that cannot actually be done by Templars are next to none. However, Moorgard and Blackguard have been quite clear on their determination to remove all the things in the game that are not fun. Soloing as a Templar is not fun - it is boring - as such it conflicts directly with everything SOE seem to want to do with the game.</span><hr></blockquote><p> </p><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<span><p>The real problem isn't that there is no evidence feedback is being taken on board.  I think the real issue is that it's not THE fixes some of us would like to see.  It's not that there's not ways to see what it is they're working on indirectly (or even direct quotes from developers).  <strong>It's that when they don't fix or address someone's personal pet issue, that's seen as an across the board snub. </strong></p><p>Frankly, just as any change to Shadowknights is typically ignored within this forum, so too are changes which are made even to Templars - so long as those changes are seen as "not important" to the "real issues" some of the Templars here raise.</p></span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Your post further illustrates my belief that the developers are getting blasted - not because they aren't paying attention to us, but rather because they aren't addressing specific issues that specific individuals want addressed.</p><p> </p>

[Andu]

<div></div>You replied before I could get my edit in. That was quick!Go back and read the bit I added which directly addresses your response <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />You are right, they are getting blasted. They are getting blasted because of the way they have cherry picked what they want to respond to and to be honest those things are clearly relatively simple bug fixes. They haven't mentioned a word about the meat of the problem.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Anduri on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">08:31 PM</span></p>

[Nari]

You know, that is why I felt better and worse at the same time in LU 19 when they took away Weakness and replaced it with more controlling stuff.  It wasn't the answer I wanted, but atleast I knew that, no they weren't just screwing around, they really intended for us to do that.  At least I don't have to sit here and hope that they will change it.<div></div>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:You know, that is why I felt better and worse at the same time in LU 19 when they took away Weakness and replaced it with more controlling stuff.  It wasn't the answer I wanted, but atleast I knew that, no they weren't just screwing around, they really intended for us to do that.  At least I don't have to sit here and hope that they will change it.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>I think in the absense of hand holding and direct communications, we have to look to the changes as you mentioned to find our answers.</p><p>I truly believe Achievements are one of those answers.  A great many Templars complained loudly for more DPS.  Well, more DPS is being delivered.  It's still not enough for some, but for others, it's going to be great.</p><p> </p><p> </p>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Your post further illustrates my belief that the developers are getting blasted - not because they aren't paying attention to us, but rather because they aren't addressing specific issues that specific individuals want addressed.</p><hr></blockquote>All the bugs are something that specific individuals want addressed. This bug with DPS is no different. I really didn't care about the bug in fate line, nor about the bug in benediction line, the end result with the fixes was insignificant. So devs are getting blasted because they are not taking all the bugs equally serious.</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Your post further illustrates my belief that the developers are getting blasted - not because they aren't paying attention to us, but rather because they aren't addressing specific issues that specific individuals want addressed.</p><hr></blockquote>All the bugs are something that specific individuals want addressed. This bug with DPS is no different. <strong><font color="#ff6600">I really didn't care about</font></strong> the bug in fate line, nor about the bug in benediction line, the end result with the fixes was insignificant. <strong><font color="#ff6600">So devs are getting blasted</font> </strong>because they are not taking all the bugs equally serious.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Again, it seems that you're upset because they're not addressing the issues you personally feel are issues...not that they aren't addressing issues in general.</p><p> </p>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Your post further illustrates my belief that the developers are getting blasted - not because they aren't paying attention to us, but rather because they aren't addressing specific issues that specific individuals want addressed.</p><hr></blockquote>All the bugs are something that specific individuals want addressed. This bug with DPS is no different. <strong><font color="#ff6600">I really didn't care about</font></strong> the bug in fate line, nor about the bug in benediction line, the end result with the fixes was insignificant. <strong><font color="#ff6600">So devs are getting blasted</font> </strong>because they are not taking all the bugs equally serious.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Again, it seems that you're upset because they're not addressing the issues you personally feel are issues...not that they aren't addressing issues in general.</p><hr></blockquote>No, I am upset because you are gloating about it. Consider yourself reported.</span><div></div>

[CoLD MeTaL]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Anduri wrote:<span><blockquote>...</span><span><font color="#ff3300">Sort of thing you cast when all the other icons are greyed out (an all to common occurence) just for something to do. .</font></span><hr></blockquote></blockquote><p>That is all you needed to say for me.</p><p>everything is so slow in Templar healing, fury cast times are generally<strong> half</strong> those of templar, recast timers are 25%+ shorter. (Restoration 11.5s recast, Wilding Elixer 8.5s recast)</p><p>Fury HoT 'always' hits.  Templar reactive 'only' works when u get damage, and damage is generally >= heal, reactives sometimes (not often) expire without doing the most they could.  Fury never experiences this.  And for the Templar, a miss is almost a bad thing, and either some damage doesn't proc it, or incoming damage is so much greater that you can't tell the difference.</p><p>With my cast times i have to 'plan ahead' and try and time the heal to go off, which means sometimes i get a minimal heal because the spell went off before the damage came in, but if I wait, he will be dead before it goes off.</p><p>Edit: We are suppose to be battle priests, right?  How is it justified that a tree hugger is quicker, than a 'battle' priest?</p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by CoLD MeTaL on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:39 PM</span></p>

[Andu]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div>Again, it seems that you're upset because they're not addressing the issues you personally feel are issues...not that they aren't addressing issues in general.<hr></blockquote>I don't think your gloating but god you are stubborn <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />If they were addressing issues <u><b>in general</b></u> they would address all the items raised in your very own post even if just to say - we do not consider this an issue becasue of xxxx. Or, we recognise this problem but I cannot see us having the resources to address it before LU23. You are right, it is only going to give rise to more debate but then this is a forum and that is what forums are for. At least we could have a more informed debate instead of all this useless speculation and backbiting.Silverfrost clearly found some time in his busy schedule to come here and pick up on some bugs. That is great and all, it's always nice to tick off the bugs. The core of our problems though will clearly need more than a quiet afternoons work and some commentary on their "vision" (tm) of Templars would be a fine start.</span><div></div>

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:You know, that is why I felt better and worse at the same time in LU 19 when they took away Weakness and replaced it with more controlling stuff. It wasn't the answer I wanted, but atleast I knew that, no they weren't just screwing around, they really intended for us to do that. At least I don't have to sit here and hope that they will change it.<hr></blockquote><p>I think in the absense of hand holding and direct communications, we have to look to the changes as you mentioned to find our answers.</p><hr></blockquote>I like how you insult a lot of people by calling actual good communication "hand-holding", thus implying we're children, and since those that don't require the communication (ie: you and those like you) are more mature. Nice subtle insult there.

[Kendricke]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:You know, that is why I felt better and worse at the same time in LU 19 when they took away Weakness and replaced it with more controlling stuff. It wasn't the answer I wanted, but atleast I knew that, no they weren't just screwing around, they really intended for us to do that. At least I don't have to sit here and hope that they will change it.<hr></blockquote><p>I think in the absense of hand holding and direct communications, we have to look to the changes as you mentioned to find our answers.</p><hr></blockquote>I like how you insult a lot of people by calling actual good communication "hand-holding", thus implying we're children, and since those that don't require the communication (ie: you and those like you) are more mature. Nice subtle insult there.<hr></blockquote><p>I use the exact same term when dealing with clients on projects I manage - whether or not the customer spent a few thousand dollars or a few million.  It's not intended in any insulting or derogatory fashion then, nor is such intent present here.  I apologize to anyone who felt the term was demeaning or otherwise insulting.</p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:00 PM</span></p>

[Andu]

<span><blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:I like how you insult a lot of people by calling actual good communication "hand-holding", thus implying we're children, and since those that don't require the communication (ie: you and those like you) are more mature. Nice subtle insult there.<hr></blockquote>Lol, I noticed that but in the spirit of harmony thought I'd let it ride.Now go out and play children!</span><div></div>

[Eriol]

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>I use the exact same term when dealing with clients on projects I manage - whether or not the customer spent a few thousand dollars or a few million.</p><hr></blockquote>Ya I'm sure your clients just love it when you tell them that you're hand-holding them through a project. Who are you, Microsoft?If any vendor ever tried to pull that with me I'd make sure that my entire company never went back to them again, including every associate in other companies I know too. Insulting your customers (unintentionally is worse really) doesn't go over well in the corporate world.

[SenorPhrog]

<span><blockquote><hr>Anduri wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div>Again, it seems that you're upset because they're not addressing the issues you personally feel are issues...not that they aren't addressing issues in general.<hr></blockquote>I don't think your gloating but god you are stubborn <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />If they were addressing issues <u><b>in general</b></u> they would address all the items raised in your very own post even if just to say - we do not consider this an issue becasue of xxxx. Or, we recognise this problem but I cannot see us having the resources to address it before LU23. You are right, it is only going to give rise to more debate but then this is a forum and that is what forums are for. At least we could have a more informed debate instead of all this useless speculation and backbiting.Silverfrost clearly found some time in his busy schedule to come here and pick up on some bugs. That is great and all, it's always nice to tick off the bugs. The core of our problems though will clearly need more than a quiet afternoons work and some commentary on their "vision" (tm) of Templars would be a fine start.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Putting Kendricke's, Caethres, even my own personal pet peeve list aside....Kingdom of Sky is released next Tuesday.   What's the point?  It's going to change some mechanics and if you were around for Deserts of Flame you know there were a few issues (and the severity of them depended on who you were...I personally didn't notice much) that had to be corrected.  If the AP's don't help, then lets revisit this again for the 600th time until there is some type of closure.      This is the worst possible time to get anything done though.   I hate to use the term "spinning your wheels" but there is no way expansion content is going to get laid aside for some class fixes.  Be patient and pick your time.  See what KoS brings.</span><div></div>

[ginfress]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Eriol wrote:<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<blockquote><hr>3devious wrote:You know, that is why I felt better and worse at the same time in LU 19 when they took away Weakness and replaced it with more controlling stuff. It wasn't the answer I wanted, but atleast I knew that, no they weren't just screwing around, they really intended for us to do that. At least I don't have to sit here and hope that they will change it.<hr></blockquote><p>I think in the absense of hand holding and direct communications, we have to look to the changes as you mentioned to find our answers.</p><hr></blockquote>I like how you insult a lot of people by calling actual good communication "hand-holding", thus implying we're children, and since those that don't require the communication (ie: you and those like you) are more mature. Nice subtle insult there.<hr></blockquote>Now dont let it get out of hand again or this thread will be closed too. I know that i can act like an [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] on these forums but the last thing we want is moderators exploding because of all the crap (and we all know we ALL are part of that crap) that happens here. Radar X is right. KoS is coming and we have to wait. Beta stuff might be tweaked a bit but we cant expect big changes we want to happen between now and then. After KoS we look, we whine and the fun starts all over again <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Lydiae]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Robert2005 wrote:<div></div><p>They're a healer class target and I hit them with my super uber master smite T6 nuke for 450 (they're undead.. honestly I've never actually noticed increased DPS against undead.  It's damned small) then they heal for 600.  I hit them for 250 with my other uber leet nuke and they heal for 600.  Then I wittle them down again; they heal again; I'm dead and oop about the same time (of-course).  Can't get them under 1/2. It's been... 5 months now?  I think maybe that's enough patience on our part.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Suggestion for fighting healers, if it will ever be seen in the all to typical morass this thread has become:</p><p>Don't try to lay on the damage to start, If you don't hurt them they won't heal themselves, but they will try to nuke you down.  Let them waste their power doing so, healing yourself as necessary.  When they run out of power, go at them full on DPS (hehe).  They will die remarkably faster.</p><p>In other words, reverse the situation.</p>

[CoLD MeTaL]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>ginfress wrote:<div></div>Now dont let it get out of hand again or this thread will be closed too. I know that i can act like an [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] on these forums but the last thing we want is moderators exploding because of all the crap (and we all know we ALL are part of that crap) that happens here. Radar X is right. KoS is coming and we have to wait. Beta stuff might be tweaked a bit but we cant expect big changes we want to happen between now and then. After KoS we look, we whine and the fun starts all over again <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote><p>I am not really disagreeing.  I 'know' that nothing will get fixed until after the expansion.</p><p>However would you put up with that in any other line of business.</p><p>I am sorry sir/maam we can't fix your transmission right now, you see the new ones are coming out next week, and they might have some advances.  or maybe closer, we are going to have to wait a few weeks to replace your transmission, the newer made ones are rolling off the line now, and we think they are better made than the current ones.</p><p>Bottom line, for me, is they don't consider it broken, or they would be fixing it, and telling us that it will be fixed, check out the Ranger information flowing.</p><p>for me, i am trying to figure out how to make this class work as it is currently, and not having any success</p><p>is it me?  Maybe, but i don't feel this way about my other 5 characters.  My Paladin is useless, but that is more because we have too many tanks, and i really just figured out what a tank was for <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />   (Not what I thought when i bought this game that is for sure)</p><p>I almost always solo (well my Templar doesn't cause i am not into pain), now i am in a guild and actually get groups up, whole different game.</p><p> </p>

[Caethre]

<div></div>OOC.<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><p>Again, it seems that you're upset because they're not addressing the issues you personally feel are issues...not that they aren't addressing issues in general.</p><hr></blockquote><p>This is a serious piece of mis-direction, because it does not assess the issue in the actual light of the situation.</p><p>Put it this way. The trivial fixes to spells like the Atoning Fate line and spell descriptions are just that ... trivial. It is not that they are not "my personal issue", it is that, they are not ANYONE's personal issue. I have not seen tens, hundreds, nay thousands upon thousands of posts about that tiny bug in the Atoning Fate line of spells. Sure, the fix is a fix, but it is not important in the scheme of things, and we all know it.</p><p>However, the class balance issues are MASSIVE. The fact that druids can contribute up to three times as much to solo and small group settings compared to Templars is having a massive impact on the gameplay of hundreds of players. These issues are not massive "because I say so", however, or because Timaarit or 3devious or Andruil or any other single person might say so. They are massive because they have been the main subject of complaint and issue now for tens, nay hundreds of Templars now for the last 4-5 months.</p><p>Tinkering with trivia is easy, yes, and trivial fixes are non-controversial. I am not saying they are not progress, of course they are, but compared to the main issue, they are unimportant to most of us. So please, less of the misdirection. We are not "upset" because we are not getting "our little issue" addressed. We are unhappy because the only issue of any importance to the overwhelming majority of us has not only not been adddressed, it has not been directly commented on (yet) by SOE.</p><p>However, in time, I am sure SOE will comment on it.</p><p> </p>

[Caethre]

<div></div>OOC.<blockquote><hr>Radar-X wrote:<span>there is no way expansion content is going to get laid aside for some class fixes.  </span><hr></blockquote><p>This is the truth, yes. Not the moment to press this issue, I'd agree. However, this issue isn't going anywhere, until it is addressed, we all know that too.</p><p> </p>

[CoLD MeTaL]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Caethre wrote:<div></div>OOC.<blockquote>...<p>This is a serious piece of mis-direction, because it does not assess the issue in the actual light of the situation.</p><p>...</p></blockquote><hr></blockquote><p>Can I put that in my own words.</p><p>I didn't know most of that stuff WAS a problem, and it didn't affect me, and the fixes I don't/haven't noticed.</p><p>DPS, cast timers, recast timers, and the fact the the Fury kicks my &^^%$# is known by me as a problem.</p><p>My EQ2 book calls Templar a "Battle Priest", I haven't seen that in months.</p><p>I hope i didn't detract from what u were trying to say Caethre.</p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by CoLD MeTaL on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:01 PM</span></p>

[Kendricke]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Caethre wrote:We are unhappy because the only issue of any importance to the overwhelming majority of us has not only not been adddressed, it has not been directly commented on (yet) by SOE.<hr></blockquote><p>As much as you may wish to think otherwise, I really don't have major issues with your posts typically.  I realize that you're fighting for your issue, and that you're passionate about the class just like I am.  However, when you make references to "the overwhelming majority of us" when trying to push your point, I find myself compelled to ask how you could possibly know that.</p><p>I'm not saying your points aren't valid.  I truly believe that, to you, those points are as valid as anything could be.  However, those points should be able to stand on their own without using an appeal to popularity like "overwhelming majority of us". </p><p> </p>

[StarryEyedElf]

<div></div><p>I know I said that if I came back to this thread, it would only be to lock it...</p><p>... well, I like to follow up on threads to make sure all is well.</p><p>I have to admit I am very impressed right now by the turn in conversation. Templars agreeing with each other, and when disagreeing, doing so respectfully.</p><p>Good job guys, keep it up! Serious kudos.</p>

[SenorPhrog]

<div></div><div><span><blockquote><hr>Caethre wrote:<div></div>OOC.<blockquote><hr>Radar-X wrote:<span>there is no way expansion content is going to get laid aside for some class fixes.  </span><hr></blockquote><p>This is the truth, yes. Not the moment to press this issue, I'd agree. However, this issue isn't going anywhere, until it is addressed, we all know that too.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>I can't argue that in any way Caethre.  It needs revisiting but right now everyone is spinning their wheels.</span></div><p>Message Edited by Radar-X on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:19 AM</span></p>

[Quijonsith]

<div></div><div></div>Hello everyone.  I've been gone for about three months.  Started playing City of Heroes, but I still have my eq2 account and I still log my templar to play with my guildies/friends.  I must say, getting towards the end of this post the discussion turned into a calm, civil, respectable discussion.  Good points (and even new points) all around.  If I may, I'd like to add a little story to go along with the point of repeating your complaints constantly not being a good tactic and that one should trust the mod (from my pov raijin comes to mind for this instance) is doing his/her job in reporting all of our concerns and that even though there is silence, that we should trust issues are being sufficiently addressed.  (BTW, I'm sorry for all the "and's" there.  Typing as I think and it was hard to avoid that runon sentence.)*Note, this is a true story that happened to me personally*I'm in the US Air Force.  I went through 6.5 months of technical school and my contract was such that I was to receive two stripes upon my 4th month of tech school directly from having no stripes, and was to have my pay increased to the level of having two stripes.  When the time came I put on my stripes I asked my finance office how long it might take for my paycheck to update.  They said that it sometimes takes a month before I see the change on my check, so I waited a month.  When my pay was still that of having no stripes I returned to finance.  They told me to take it up with my next base, which I was due to arrive at in 2 months.  Well that wasn't much help.When I arrived at my new base I told my supervisor of my problem and he reffered me to the finance office.  They said they'd look into it.  Several days later no response so I went again.  Here the cycle started until I started going every day.  I then was sent back and for between finance and the personell office.  Everytime I wound up with some tid bit of new information and hope, then no word for some time.  Everytime I was left too long without any word, I went back.  Everytime I went back their reactions were that of someone who had not been working on my problem (and i'm talking about being paid two ranks under what I should).  All in all it took eight months before my paycheck was fixed, at which point I recieved my backpay.  Had I not kept on their toes about it, there's no telling how long the resolution would have taken.  Eight months was already too long.*End story*The point i'm making here is this.  When one has an issue (or issues in this case) that have been brought up, feedback is needed.  If we as a community were to allow the issues to drop under the perverbial radar and simply trust that they are working on things, those responsible would lose sight of our issues and a resolution, if any, would be delayed indefinitely.  When the responsible party does not provide any feedback, which is pretty much the case with templars it seems, the only way for the customer to attempt to gain reassurance that the issues are indeed being addressed is to continue to keep on the company's toes about it.  To quote a phrase that I'm sure has been used around our forum: "Throw me a friggen bone here people"To throw out another quote:"Customers are like rashes.  If you ignore them they'll eventually go away, but if you give em a scratch here and there they're likely to stick around alot longer."Cheers,Jon<div></div><p><span class="time_text"></span></p><p>Message Edited by Quijonsith on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">06:29 AM</span></p>