Templar's are shafted

[boylocke]

<DIV> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>Is it just me or did Templars get the shaft in terms of healing, especially regarding<SPAN> </SPAN>signature heals.  Here is my reasoning behind this, correct me if I'm wrong.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>I play one of each, a cleric, druid, and shaman.  They each have signature heals, clerics have reactives, druids have heal over time, and shaman have wards.  The other heals, the single small heal, single large heal, and group non-signature heal are also had by each class but I will not talk about them because how one class could use them is the same as every other class.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>These numbers are for purposes of simplicity only.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>Let’s say a tank is in battle and is hit for 1000 damage from a spell.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>The cleric had a reactive up, which healed the tank for 200 HP, a net value of negative (-) 800 hp.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>The shaman had a ward up, absorbing 800 HP of the spell, a net value of negative (-) 200 hp.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>The druid had a heal over time up, adding 200 hit points to the tanks health, a net value of (-) 800 hp.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>Here's where things get tricky.  Let's say the tank only started with 1000 HP.  With the cleric, he now has 200 hp, with the shaman, 800 hp, and with the druid, 200 hp.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>Lets say 4 seconds go by and no other healing was performed and the tank was hit again with a 500 hp hit.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>The cleric's reactive healed another 200 hp (from the remaining 200 hp the tank had) which makes 400 hp.  This tank is dead because there is (-) 100 hp difference.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>The druid's tank who had 200 hp remaining from the last hit was also healed another 200 hp and another 200 hp from the 4 seconds that have gone by with the heal over time spell.  Thus, the tank is heading into the 500 hp hit with 600 hp.  Once hit, there is still (+) 100 hp.  This tank lives.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>The Shaman's tank started with 800 hp but the ward is gone, used up, so the 500 hp hit made full contact, decreasing the tanks hp to 300.  This tank also lives.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>Does this make sense?  Even if these numbers aren't perfect.  Druid and Cleric signature heals are mostly even in their HP, the only difference is how they happen.  Druids are automatic over time and clerics are triggered if the tank takes damage.  Shaman's wards are usually about 4 times the HP of the cleric/druid spells.  So 200 hp X 4 = 800 hp ward.  </FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>I realize some might say "well you have to use your non-signature heals then right after the first hit."  This may be so, but druids and shaman can do the same exact thing.  This seems very unbalanced, giving clerics the shaft.</FONT></SPAN></P></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by xyagentguy on <span class=date_text>11-12-2006</span> <span class=time_text>12:12 PM</span>

[StevusX]

<P>in that specific instance it looks bad BUT.......</P> <P>what if that tank is hit 4 times in 4 secs ?  or even more if a multiple mob ?</P> <P>Then the figures are very very different.</P> <P>In actual practice we CAN keep a tank alive. </P> <P>And any healer who can get away with JUST using their signature heals isnt in a very challenging group.</P> <P>By using ALL our various types of heals (just like other healers do against tough mobs)  i am able to keep tanks and groups alive well enough to be in demand.</P> <P>I have NEVER EVER been refused a place in a group or raid because i am a templar - quite the opposite in fact. (well unless the group already has a templar of course in which case even i prefer another type of healer to join - it just makes sense !)</P> <P>If you want to make any kind of reasonable comparison then you have to factor in a healers COMPLETE ability to heal - all types of heals - and compare that to power useage as well as situational factors. Our ability to take punishment and survive for example can be incredibly important. If you're dead you can't heal ;p </P> <P>In a raid its the healer who can heal for the lenght of the fight thats most useful for example so heal to power ratios are very important <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Too many factors can effect things to really make a comparison without A LOT of testing across a LOT of mobs and situations and group makeups.</P> <P>What i do know is - out there in EQ2 game land templars are wanted and needed :smileywink:</P>

[boylocke]

I guess that is true, if the hits were fast and hard, heal over time might not be able to keep up.  I love my Templar, she is actually my main.  I guess each healer shines in different situations.  For example, I don't really think anyone can deny that druids excel at group healing. 

[SG_01]

In those 3 of those 4 seconds we cast a > 800 HP heal. (At levels where the reactives do about 200, 1000 sounds good for the regular big heal), putting the tank at full health... Nuff said

[boylocke]

No you see, you're missing the point.  I already said that the shaman and the druid can do the exact same thing.  In those few seconds they can also cast their non-signature heals and STILL be ahead.  The Templar, in this case, will still not have restored as many HPs as the druid or shaman, no matter what.  Of course, they can't go above 1000 hp, but if they could, the druid and shaman would be ahead.

[Boli32]

<div></div>It is useless to take one spell line and compare them.. first of all it <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spells&message.id=9434" target="_blank">has been done</a> and that showed that templars were far from 'shafted'... and perhaps most importantly... A templar has argually the best buffs and some great debuffs, when you include things such as lotto heals... the fact they can buff a tanks health by 1.5k in comparison to a druids 281. Templars are the most solid healing class out there and reactives the most power efficient means of keeping a tnak on their feet. Sure I (as my fury) can deal with spike damage better and heal a group better... but for single target healign with constant damage you just can't beat a templar. In the end if you want to keep a tank on their feet you use a shaman/driud and Cleric or a warden templar and mystic that's what a full raid runs with and with good reasons. the differing helaing methods really shine when you use them in conjuction with each other. <div></div><p>Message Edited by boli on <span class=date_text>11-13-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:06 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>boli wrote:<div></div> Sure I (as my fury) can deal with spike damage better and heal a group better... but for single target healign <i>with constant damage</i> you just can't beat a templar.<hr></blockquote>This prerequisite is the thing that makes templar healing unreliable. Druids already have the same maximum healing potential as a cleric does after 20 seconds of fighting. But clerics potential depends on how the damage is incoming while druids healing doesn't. So if the damage is not constant, clercic healing will diminish while druids keep the healing constant as well. In other words clerics can reach the maximum potential on certain defined cases which aren't even dependant on the cleric while druids can reach it whenever necessary. That is why cleric healing is called lotto healing, there are too many random factors in it. <div></div>

[lmhotep]

<P>Your calculation is flawed.</P> <P>If the tank only has a 1000hp and gets hit by 1000 in the druids case the tank is dead cos the HOT we have doesnt do a thing when the tank gets damage it only keeps healing after the tank has had its damage.</P>

[Timaarit]

And yours is not? Only shamans can keep the target up if they take more damage than they have health. And of course any healer who just used their heal-instead-of-death spell. <div></div>

[SG_01]

<blockquote><hr>xyagentguy wrote:No you see, you're missing the point.  I already said that the shaman and the druid can do the exact same thing.  In those few seconds they can also cast their non-signature heals and STILL be ahead.  The Templar, in this case, will still not have restored as many HPs as the druid or shaman, no matter what.  Of course, they can't go above 1000 hp, but if they could, the druid and shaman would be ahead.<hr></blockquote>In that case you missed the point that Templars get the biggest non-signature heals in the game *nods nods*

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>SG_01 wrote:<blockquote><hr>xyagentguy wrote:<div></div>No you see, you're missing the point.  I already said that the shaman and the druid can do the exact same thing.  In those few seconds they can also cast their non-signature heals and STILL be ahead.  The Templar, in this case, will still not have restored as many HPs as the druid or shaman, no matter what.  Of course, they can't go above 1000 hp, but if they could, the druid and shaman would be ahead.<hr></blockquote>In that case you missed the point that Templars get the biggest non-signature heals in the game *nods nods*<hr></blockquote>You mean one of the biggest? Defilers have the exact same heal.<div></div>

[SG_01]

<blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<blockquote><hr>SG_01 wrote:<blockquote><hr>xyagentguy wrote:<div></div>No you see, you're missing the point.  I already said that the shaman and the druid can do the exact same thing.  In those few seconds they can also cast their non-signature heals and STILL be ahead.  The Templar, in this case, will still not have restored as many HPs as the druid or shaman, no matter what.  Of course, they can't go above 1000 hp, but if they could, the druid and shaman would be ahead.<hr></blockquote>In that case you missed the point that Templars get the biggest non-signature heals in the game *nods nods*<hr></blockquote>You mean one of the biggest? Defilers have the exact same heal.<div></div><hr></blockquote>No they don't, they sacrifice their own health to do that healing. At any rate, I doubt templars get shafted, especially if you look at the whole picture. Which is all what I was trying to say.

[SenorPhrog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> xyagentguy wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>Is it just me or did Templars get the shaft in terms of healing, especially regarding<SPAN> </SPAN>signature heals.  Here is my reasoning behind this, correct me if I'm wrong.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>I play one of each, a cleric, druid, and shaman.  They each have signature heals, clerics have reactives, druids have heal over time, and shaman have wards.  The other heals, the single small heal, single large heal, and group non-signature heal are also had by each class but I will not talk about them because how one class could use them is the same as every other class.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>These numbers are for purposes of simplicity only.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>Let’s say a tank is in battle and is hit for 1000 damage from a spell.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>The cleric had a reactive up, which healed the tank for 200 HP, a net value of negative (-) 800 hp.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>The shaman had a ward up, absorbing 800 HP of the spell, a net value of negative (-) 200 hp.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>The druid had a heal over time up, adding 200 hit points to the tanks health, a net value of (-) 800 hp.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>Here's where things get tricky.  Let's say the tank only started with 1000 HP.  With the cleric, he now has 200 hp, with the shaman, 800 hp, and with the druid, 200 hp.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>Lets say 4 seconds go by and no other healing was performed and the tank was hit again with a 500 hp hit.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>The cleric's reactive healed another 200 hp (from the remaining 200 hp the tank had) which makes 400 hp.  This tank is dead because there is (-) 100 hp difference.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>The druid's tank who had 200 hp remaining from the last hit was also healed another 200 hp and another 200 hp from the 4 seconds that have gone by with the heal over time spell.  Thus, the tank is heading into the 500 hp hit with 600 hp.  Once hit, there is still (+) 100 hp.  This tank lives.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>The Shaman's tank started with 800 hp but the ward is gone, used up, so the 500 hp hit made full contact, decreasing the tanks hp to 300.  This tank also lives.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>Does this make sense?  Even if these numbers aren't perfect.  Druid and Cleric signature heals are mostly even in their HP, the only difference is how they happen.  Druids are automatic over time and clerics are triggered if the tank takes damage.  Shaman's wards are usually about 4 times the HP of the cleric/druid spells.  So 200 hp X 4 = 800 hp ward.  </FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>I realize some might say "well you have to use your non-signature heals then right after the first hit."  This may be so, but druids and shaman can do the same exact thing.  This seems very unbalanced, giving clerics the shaft.</FONT></SPAN></P></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by xyagentguy on <SPAN class=date_text>11-12-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:12 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR> Saying we are getting "shafted" isn't the best way to present your arguement</P> <P>We can play a different scenario.</P> <P>Let's say your tank gets hit 4 times for 1200 hps damage in 3 seconds (thats 300 dmg each). </P> <P>Cleric - Tank is now down to 600 points.  Spot heal.</P> <P>Druid - Tank is dead</P> <P>Shaman - Tank is down to 400. Spot heal.</P> <P>There are situations where one is better than the other.  You chose one where obviously shaman will be more effective.  No healer is more effective in all situations though.</P>

[lmhotep]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR>And yours is not? Only shamans can keep the target up if they take more damage than they have health. And of course any healer who just used their heal-instead-of-death spell.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>Unless im wrong my calculation isnt cos when that tank gets hit your reactive will cast and heal so the tank doesnt go down.</P> <P>You may correct me if im wrong :smileyhappy:</P> <P>In any case everyone knows wards are superior to every type of healing there is no way arround that.</P>

[thesilverf]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SG_01 wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR>You mean one of the biggest? Defilers have the exact same heal.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No they don't, they sacrifice their own health to do that healing. At any rate, I doubt templars get shafted, especially if you look at the whole picture. Which is all what I was trying to say.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>The heal amounts are still the same, though.  My Defiler just hit level 31 and yes they use some health but it is miniscule, and they have a self buff that regens Health.  The health cost offsets the fact that the Power cost is much lower.  Honestly I don't even notice the loss  of heatlh.<BR>

[Olivet]

hehe there is a reason why templars are in MT groups for raids... and its not cos they are shafted.I take your point tho, and its a good example of why clerics aint very effective keeping mages alive<div></div>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>lmhotep wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:And yours is not? Only shamans can keep the target up if they take more damage than they have health. And of course any healer who just used their heal-instead-of-death spell. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Unless im wrong my calculation isnt cos when that tank gets hit your reactive will cast and heal so the tank doesnt go down.</p> <p>You may correct me if im wrong :smileyhappy:</p> <p>In any case everyone knows wards are superior to every type of healing there is no way arround that.</p><hr></blockquote>Ok. Target gets hit for 1k. The hit is reduced from his health. If this damage means he is killed, well, then he is killed. If it means he has some health left and is not killed, the reactive heals the target. Reactives do not heal a dead target any more than HoT's or wards do. Wards on the other hand reduce the incoming damage so that the target is not hit for as much as otherwise. So you haven't understood correctly how reactives work, target needs to be alive <i>after</i> the damage is reduced in order for the reactive to heal.<div></div>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>SG_01 wrote:<blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<blockquote><hr>SG_01 wrote:<blockquote><hr>xyagentguy wrote:<div></div>No you see, you're missing the point.  I already said that the shaman and the druid can do the exact same thing.  In those few seconds they can also cast their non-signature heals and STILL be ahead.  The Templar, in this case, will still not have restored as many HPs as the druid or shaman, no matter what.  Of course, they can't go above 1000 hp, but if they could, the druid and shaman would be ahead.<hr></blockquote>In that case you missed the point that Templars get the biggest non-signature heals in the game *nods nods*<hr></blockquote>You mean one of the biggest? Defilers have the exact same heal.<div></div><hr></blockquote>No they don't, they sacrifice their own health to do that healing. At any rate, I doubt templars get shafted, especially if you look at the whole picture. Which is all what I was trying to say.<hr></blockquote>Yes they do. The heal heals the target for exactly the same amount as the templar heal does with the same upgrades and spell quality. Also defilers buff health just the same amount as templars do. So the base of your claim has been proven incorrect and you still stick to it even though you cannot say why O_o<div></div>

[SG_01]

<blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<blockquote><hr>SG_01 wrote:<blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<blockquote><hr>SG_01 wrote:<blockquote><hr>xyagentguy wrote:<div></div>Noyou see, you're missing the point.  I already said that the shamanand the druid can do the exact same thing.  In those few secondsthey can also cast their non-signature heals and STILL be ahead. The Templar, in this case, will still not have restored as many HPs asthe druid or shaman, no matter what.  Of course, they can't goabove 1000 hp, but if they could, the druid and shaman would beahead.<hr></blockquote>In that case you missed the point that Templars get the biggest non-signature heals in the game *nods nods*<hr></blockquote>You mean one of the biggest? Defilers have the exact same heal.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Nothey don't, they sacrifice their own health to do that healing. At anyrate, I doubt templars get shafted, especially if you look at the wholepicture. Which is all what I was trying to say.<hr></blockquote>Yesthey do. The heal heals the target for exactly the same amount as thetemplar heal does with the same upgrades and spell quality. Alsodefilers buff health just the same amount as templars do.So the base of your claim has been proven incorrect and you still stick to it even though you cannot say why O_o<div></div><hr></blockquote>You're still not looking at the whole picture. And Templars are not shafted one bit, check the other posts if you further need any details <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><br >Also, stop nit-picking, cause you're giving me a headache!<p>Message Edited by SG_01 on <span class=date_text>11-13-2006</span> <span class=time_text>11:28 PM</span>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV>Yes the nature of the reactive does limit how effective they are in comparison to other healers.  In the first example of this thread a slow heavy hitting mob will cause problems for a templar. (which in part can make it more difficult for a cleric/cloth tank combo) but as the other example the reactive came off better.  Each heal-type is situational.  But templars are the most defensive buffing healer in the game - they buff HP more and have many damage avoidance buffs for a MT. (see below for of post for my basis)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Signature heals <EM>are </EM>on the same cast timer between various classes (defiler and templar for example have their group signature heals on 5 sec cast timers) and are balanced between mana efficiency, when it heals and by how much (wards are more mana inefficient but prevent HP loss while HoT are constant once the damage is taken and much more mana efficient, reactives are inbetween)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And yes damage IS taken before the reactive ticks it's heal when hit.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes templars and defilers have the biggest single target heal.  Defilers sacrifice their own HP as part of the cost (and this is mitigated by the mana cost being cheaper) Boosted in combat HP regen can offset this but you could also argue that paying HP for a heal is self defeating.  Also in theory and on paper other healers can heal more quickly and more HP than templars but the reality is different.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>HP buffs at master 1 curtesy of EQ2IDB</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Defiler - 1951</DIV> <DIV>Malevolent Efflux (lvl 5<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> buffs grp HP by 321</DIV> <DIV>Rapracity (lvl 60) buffs grp HP by 666</DIV> <DIV>Portent (lvl 5<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> buffs single target HP by 964</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templar - 1962</DIV> <DIV>Symbol of Naltron (lvl5<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> buffs grp HP 321</DIV> <DIV>Gallantry (lvl61) buffs grp HP by 677</DIV> <DIV>Holy Redoubt (lvl5<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> buffs single target HP by 964</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now 11HP may not be much but then it proves that defilers <EM>do not</EM> buff health just the same amount as templars do.</DIV> <DIV>Howzat for nitpicking :smileywink:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <span class=date_text>11-13-2006</span> <span class=time_text>07:08 PM</span>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>SG_01 wrote:You're still not looking at the whole picture. And Templars are not shafted one bit, check the other posts if you further need any details <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Also, stop nit-picking, cause you're giving me a headache!<p>Message Edited by SG_01 on <span class="date_text">11-13-2006</span> <span class="time_text">11:28 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>No, it is you who is not looking at the big picture. I have already told yu why clerics are worst of the healers. It is because all other healers can scale their heals according to incoming  <i>damage</i>, clerical heals scale according to the amount of incoming <i>hits</i>. Thus big damage, slow hits has no effect on druids nor shamans but big impact on clerics. Small damage, fast hits, again, no impact on shamans or druids but on in this scenario clerics can heal as well as the other 2.<div></div>

[Tash 1]

<DIV><FONT color=#cccccc size=2></FONT></DIV> <P><SPAN><FONT size=2><FONT color=#cccccc>This is not an easy question about if we are shafted or not. As others have pointed out we ought to look at the whole picture not just a single spell.<BR><BR></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN><FONT size=2><FONT color=#cccccc>First: Templars have boost in HP and Mitigation some of the other priest have not or not as good. this will lead to that the tank have more hits and take less damage.<BR><BR></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN><FONT size=2><FONT color=#cccccc>Second We have stoneskin and later shield alley. In my case that’s lead to that the tank has 2 chances one at 10% and one at 18% to not get hit at all.<BR><BR></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN><FONT size=2><FONT color=#cccccc>Third We might have some extra lotto heals working to healing the tank when he attacks or the monster do. <BR><BR></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN><FONT size=2><FONT color=#cccccc>I often feel as my templar is inferior to my druid class priest but when I get posted phrases from raids or groups I can see that I as a templar outheal almost everything in sight.<BR></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN><FONT size=2><FONT color=#cccccc>So I cant really say if we are shafted or not in some situations probably but in others just the opposite.<BR><BR><BR><BR></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN><FONT size=2><FONT color=#cccccc>/Tash</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Timaarit said:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>No, it is you who is not looking at the big picture</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>Confrontational.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Timaarit said:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>It is because all other healers can scale their heals according to incoming  <I>damage</I>, clerical heals scale according to the amount of incoming <I>hits</I>. Thus big damage, slow hits has no effect on druids nor shamans but big impact on clerics. Small damage, fast hits, again, no impact on shamans or druids</FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>HoTs heal constantly for a specific duration <EM>regardless of incoming damage OR amount of hits</EM>.  They therefore do not scale as you suggest.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>Wards prevent a specific amount damage <EM>irrespective of incoming dps OR amount of hits</EM>.  If they have ward left they will then heal for the remaining amount.  They are mana inefficient compared to other heal types.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>Reactives, yes, do tick to incoming hits but to get the maximium effect from them you have to alter when you cast them.  Fast, low damage hits?   Wait til the tank is in the yellow then cast to get the maximium heal.  Slow, heavy hits?  Cast early and top up with other heals as necessary.  I suppose you could say that reactives require good situational awareness of the mob and a shade of foresight to reach their true effectiveness.  IMO other Heal types are more fire and forget (dumb-fire to use the pet reference)</FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Timaarit said:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>I have already told yu why clerics are worst of the healers</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>No you have given your opinion as to why clerics are the worst healers.  No facts or information to back up your opinion.  In other threads on this forum you have given unequal situations ( 2 healers with a swash MT vs 1 healer and a monk) to your inability to  get add dps (2 handed fabled - unknown dam rating or damage spread,  using 4 buttons to dps when I personally have 9 buttons which increase my dps)  all to substantiate the failings of a cleric.  Could you please provide unbiased information or be more constructive.</FONT></DIV><p>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <span class=date_text>11-13-2006</span> <span class=time_text>11:49 PM</span>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Hopefulness wrote:<div></div> <div><font color="#ffff00">Timaarit said:</font></div> <div><font color="#ffff00">No, it is you who is not looking at the big picture</font></div> <div> </div> <div><font color="#66ff00">Confrontational. <font color="#ffffff">But so true.</font> </font></div> <div> </div> <div><font color="#ffff00">Timaarit said:</font></div> <div><font color="#ffff00">It is because all other healers can scale their heals according to incoming  <i>damage</i>, clerical heals scale according to the amount of incoming <i>hits</i>. Thus big damage, slow hits has no effect on druids nor shamans but big impact on clerics. Small damage, fast hits, again, no impact on shamans or druids</font> </div> <div> </div> <div><font color="#66ff00">HoTs heal constantly for a specific duration <em>regardless of incoming damage OR amount of hits</em>.  They therefore do not scale as you suggest. <font color="#ffffff">So they scale to damage. As with all heals, they can only heal up to certain amount. This amoun is not dependant on how many times the target is hit but how much damage it has taken. So druids and shamans will reach their maximum potential whenever target takes enough damage. Clerical heals can only reach their maximum potential if the target is hit often enough. So it really does scale the way I suggest.</font> </font></div> <div><font color="#66ff00">Wards prevent a specific amount damage <em>irrespective of incoming dps OR amount of hits</em>.  If they have ward left they will then heal for the remaining amount.  They are mana inefficient compared to other heal types.</font></div> <div><font color="#66ff00">Reactives, yes, do tick to incoming hits but to get the maximium effect from them you have to alter when you cast them.  Fast, low damage hits?   Wait til the tank is in the yellow then cast to get the maximium heal.  Slow, heavy hits?  Cast early and top up with <b><i>other heals</i></b> as necessary.  I suppose you could say that reactives require good situational awareness of the mob and a shade of foresight to reach their true effectiveness.  IMO other Heal types are more fire and forget (dumb-fire to use the pet reference)</font> <font color="#ffffff">So you are suggesting that other healers cant use their 'other heals'? Again, with reactives you have less potential than with wards and HoT's. </font> </div> <div> </div> <div><font color="#ffff00">Timaarit said:</font></div> <div><font color="#ffff00">I have already told yu why clerics are worst of the healers</font></div> <div> </div> <div><font color="#66ff00">No you have given your opinion as to why clerics are the worst healers.  No facts or information to back up your opinion.  In other threads on this forum you have given unequal situations ( 2 healers with a swash MT vs 1 healer and a monk) to your inability to  get add dps (2 handed fabled - unknown dam rating or damage spread,  using 4 buttons to dps when I personally have 9 buttons which increase my dps)  all to substantiate the failings of a cleric.  Could you please provide unbiased information or be more constructive.</font></div><p>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <span class="date_text">11-13-2006</span> <span class="time_text">11:49 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Right. I suggest you take your own advice. As I said, the shaman was solohealing the zone. On an average fight, my templar did no other healing exept occasional proc heal on someone other than MT. So basically my templar wasn't even there. Something totally different than with the other occasion and templar solohealing my monk. Also it is YOU who has provided no facts, just guesses which have been totally false. Oh, btw, last weekend we had a raid with 19 people. 6 healers, 2 clerics, 3 shamans and a fury. Guess which healer formed his own group. That is right, the 2nd templar was alone in the last group when we started. And our raidleader plays one so he knows how good templars really are. <div></div>

[Tash 1]

<DIV><FONT color=#cccccc size=2></FONT></DIV> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#cccccc><FONT size=2>Now this was one of the saddest things I ever heard. Having a raid with a group of just one…no matter what class that’s really is so mean! This is really a un fun set up and I doubt it even the most effective. If they had put me in a solo group I think I would have gone done something different. <BR><BR></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN><FONT color=#cccccc><FONT size=2>I curious… (I’m no hardcore raider nor are my guild we can still just raid the first three named in Labs but never the less...)<BR><BR></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN><FONT color=#cccccc><FONT size=2>The absolutely best healer setup for MT must be one priest from each class so all buffs and heals are efficient and don’t overwrite each other right? If one have second tank group (We have it for some of the mobs) It’s a really good thing to have a shaman and cleric in that to. Extra Druids go nice in DPS groups. <SPAN> </SPAN>The Cleric in MT group handle the group reactive if there is an extra cleric outside MT group, since that cleric can take care of single target reactives </FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN><FONT color=#cccccc><FONT size=2>I guess it’s the same with the other priest classes that the single is possible to cast outside group while the group must be in group. Main task for MT healers (at least one) is to Cure Cure and then some Cure. As long as there is no debuffs on the MT things work really nice I feel.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><FONT color=#cccccc><FONT size=2>So ok 3 healers in MT group and if you have just 6 healers then you just have 1 healer per group, are you really so good that you can waist one healers buff? Or are we so bad? We really need all our healers full attention. I don’t do dps at all on raids. Since if it’s a named I will be fully concentrating on casting cures heals and debuffs. <SPAN> </SPAN>And if it is a trashmob I don’t really care he go down fast enough anyway a few extra seconds don’t really matter just to show off.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#cccccc size=2></FONT></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#cccccc><FONT size=2>/Tash</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>

[Timaarit]

Well we generally dont use 2nd tank group. Also we knew some people were late so in the end that templar had his spot. But in a mixed group with all the latecomers (we ended up with 22 people in the raid). But as I was the other templar, I felt really sad when I heard all the people wanting different healers to their groups to give them buffs and no one wanted the 2nd templar. Now if he had been an inquisitor, well, I am certain someone else would have ended up alone to begin with. <div></div>

[Archill]

<div><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:Well we generally dont use 2nd tank group. Also we knew some people were late so in the end that templar had his spot. But in a mixed group with all the latecomers (we ended up with 22 people in the raid). But as I was the other templar, I felt really sad when I heard all the people wanting different healers to their groups to give them buffs and no one wanted the 2nd templar. Now if he had been an inquisitor, well, I am certain someone else would have ended up alone to begin with. <div></div><hr></blockquote>This is how I feel when my templar raids. If there is no need for a 2nd tank group, I don't only feel Im extra baggage, I know.. The problem is I can't seem to convince my raidleader that my Shadowknight would be more use than my templar.</div>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Timaarit said:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>It is because all other healers can scale their heals according to incoming  <I>damage</I>, clerical heals scale according to the amount of incoming <I>hits</I>. Thus big damage, slow hits has no effect on druids nor shamans but big impact on clerics. Small damage, fast hits, again, no impact on shamans or druids</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>HoTs heal constantly for a specific duration <EM>regardless of incoming damage OR amount of hits</EM>.  They therefore do not scale as you suggest.<BR><BR><FONT color=#ffffff>So they scale to damage. As with all heals, they can only heal up to certain amount. This amoun is not dependant on how many times the target is hit but how much damage it has taken. So druids and shamans will reach their maximum potential whenever target takes enough damage. Clerical heals can only reach their maximum potential if the target is hit often enough. So it really does scale the way I suggest.</FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT color=#66ff00><FONT color=#ffffff></FONT></FONT></DIV> <P><FONT color=#66ff00><FONT color=#ff9900>HoT scale up with damage (to whatever the max tick is- in fact beyond a certain point only wards scale with damage) They DO NOT scale down.  In fact they lose healing potential even if no damage is taken. Reactives and wards have the same healing potential if zero damage is taken.</FONT></FONT></P> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>Wards prevent a specific amount damage <EM>irrespective of incoming dps OR amount of hits</EM>.  If they have ward left they will then heal for the remaining amount.  They are mana inefficient compared to other heal types.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>Reactives, yes, do tick to incoming hits but to get the maximium effect from them you have to alter when you cast them.  Fast, low damage hits?   Wait til the tank is in the yellow then cast to get the maximium heal.  Slow, heavy hits?  Cast early and top up with <B><I>other heals</I></B> as necessary.  I suppose you could say that reactives require good situational awareness of the mob and a shade of foresight to reach their true effectiveness.  IMO other Heal types are more fire and forget (dumb-fire to use the pet reference)</FONT><BR><BR><FONT color=#ffffff>So you are suggesting that other healers cant use their 'other heals'? Again, with reactives you have less potential than with wards and HoT's. </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff9900>Not at all i am merely pointing out a way to maximise the reactives potential.  If a HoT or, god forbid, a ward fell short then use the direct heals to top up in exactly the same way as I suggested doing above with reactives.  Plus, how does this prove the lack of potential in reactives?<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Timaarit said:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>I have already told yu why clerics are worst of the healers</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>No you have given your opinion as to why clerics are the worst healers.  No facts or information to back up your opinion.  In other threads on this forum you have given unequal situations ( 2 healers with a swash MT vs 1 healer and a monk) to your inability to  get add dps (2 handed fabled - unknown dam rating or damage spread,  using 4 buttons to dps when I personally have 9 buttons which increase my dps)  all to substantiate the failings of a cleric.  Could you please provide unbiased information or be more constructive.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>Right. I suggest you take your own advice.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff9900>Confrontational again.  Please calm down</FONT><BR><BR>As I said, the shaman was solohealing the zone. On an average fight, my templar did no other healing exept occasional proc heal on someone other than MT. So basically my templar wasn't even there. Something totally different than with the other occasion and templar solohealing my monk.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff9900>A shaman and a templar, even if the templar is not casting their heals (which I doubt since it was a swashie so i assume you were precasting reactives in case of overflow on the shaman) provide better passive damage prevention thro buffs (ie ward regens, HP buffs, resists) than just a templar - in this case they were different templars (since you were the templar in the first one with the shaman and swash, while you were the monk in the second) and therefore different abilities.  In any case it looked you were using this example as a way to criticize the templar class</FONT>.</DIV> <DIV>Timaarit quoted from the ''Why Are You a Templar?'' thread</DIV> <DIV>In any case, last time I was with my templar in Nek3, we had a swashy in mastercrafted armor tanking it and also a shaman. The shaman practically solohealed the whole zone. Next time I was in there with my monk as tank (fully fabled, means higher mitigation and avoidance than what the swashy had) and a templar (somewhat in raidgear) as only healer and there were some serious issues with keeping me alive.<BR><BR>Also it is YOU who has provided no facts, just guesses which have been totally false.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff9900>Do you mean further up where i proved that templars buff HP more than defilers contradicted what you have previously stated?  Or that HoT heal regardless of incoming damage?  Please quote a source.  Where am I wrong? I would love to learn if I have misunderstood something or provided incorrect information.</FONT><BR><BR>Oh, btw, last weekend we had a raid with 19 people. 6 healers, 2 clerics, 3 shamans and a fury. Guess which healer formed his own group. That is right, the 2nd templar was alone in the last group when we started. And our raidleader plays one so he knows how good templars really are.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff9900>Personal choice to put a templar alone in group 4 is not very good evidence ''why clerics are worst of the healers'' especially when you contratict yourself by stating that your raidleader ''knows how good templars are''</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <span class=date_text>11-14-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:50 AM</span>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV>Well some guilds are of the opinion that the best setup for a raid is to have as few healers as possible since they would be taking spots from DPS who would speed up killing the mob meaning less healing is needed-meaning less chance to wipe. I've heard rumours of raids managing on 3 or 4 healers raid wide (through use of rotating signature heals and dedicated group setups to maximse resists/buffs utility) but i haven't seen it for myself.  In my experience 5 or 6 seems to be the norm.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for a second MT grp there are mobs were you may need an Off-tank (have the 2nd MT fight a mob member simultaneously) and if the MT drops, for what ever reason, having a someone able to take the hate before the ping pong starts is a bonus.</DIV>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Hopefulness wrote: <p><font color="#66ff00"><font color="#ff9900">HoT scale up with damage (to whatever the max tick is- in fact beyond a certain point only wards scale with damage) They DO NOT scale down.  In fact they lose healing potential even if no damage is taken. Reactives and wards have the same healing potential if zero damage is taken.</font></font></p> <hr></blockquote>You are talking about totally different thing. There is no difference in healing when someone is taking less damage than what a tick of HoT or reactive heals. The difference comes when damage taken is higher than what HoT, ward, or reactives can potentially heal in optimal situation and direct heals are needed for healing. In these cases the true differences between healers show up. When MT is actully hit once per 1,6s or more often and for more than what a reactive tics on each proc, reactives are the best heal out of those 3. But when target is avoiding hits and not hit that often, reactives are losing efficiency. Thus they do not scale with damage but by the amount of incoming hits. This has absolutely no effect on HoT's or wards. Well, I suppose you are partly right, wards and HoT's dont actually scale, they will heal up to their maximum potential regardless on how often and how hard target is hit. Reactives will scale down as target is taking less and less hits. So cleric spells are actually the only ones that scale. And they only scale when it is actually crucial to heal. And they only scale down from what other healers can heal. Thus clerics are shafted because they are lotto healers whose healing depends very much on how often target is hit. Stunning takes away 50% pf clerics maximum healing potential while it has absolutely no effect on shamans or druids. HoT's will heal even when MT is not getting hit and wards will eventually heal their remaining amount. Reactives just expire.<div></div>

[SG_01]

Timaarit: Taking an example of a shaman with a templar might sound nice, but it is in fact a poor combination. For fact I've solo healed most of labs (excluding some named) as a 64 templar (The 70 fury we had went LD after the franky-named and never showed back up), if you're going to say that we are completely shafted I think that would be out of the picture. Also when it comes to monk healing, I've written a guide which is somewhere on this board, which should tell you exactly how to heal brawlers.Though not one of the more known heals, definitly one of our signature heals is Reverence. No other subclass has a heal of that kind, and it is highly efficient for healing avoidance tanks. Especially in combination with our Glory of Battle line.The fact that Templars need to know their class a bit better for more efficient healing is only a plus for me. It's a challenge, and I like that.<p>Message Edited by SG_01 on <span class=date_text>11-14-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:44 PM</span>

[Timaarit]

Wow. We need minimum of 5 healers for Labs. Then again, I solohealed HoF as lvl 63 templar. We had a few wipes due to me being too close to an AE but anyway. <div></div>

[SG_01]

<blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:Wow. We need minimum of 5 healers for Labs.Then again, I solohealed HoF as lvl 63 templar. We had a few wipes due to me being too close to an AE but anyway.<div></div><hr></blockquote>So then, if we can do content 7 levels above our level, how is a templar shafted?

[Hopefulne]

<DIV>:smileytongue:I agree.</DIV> <DIV>There<EM> is</EM> no guarentee of a heal <STRONG>but </STRONG>then reactives do respond better to spike damage. (as Timaarit said ''when it is crucial to heal'') wards have less ''heal'' and HoT are a constant every 2 seconds while reactives will tick faster or slower depending on the incoming damage.</DIV> <DIV>As to the nature of the reactive meaning clerics are screwed, i believe it's a personal choice.  Better spike response versus less guarrenteed healing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Remember that despite the title and where this is posted this is about signature heals.  Reverence has kind of snuck in as one of them and pairs nicely (IMO) to reactives.  Shame it thas been upgraded into T7 tho.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Kinda disappointed that SG-01 said that being a templar is challenged :smileytongue:</DIV><p>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <span class=date_text>11-14-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:18 AM</span>

[SG_01]

<blockquote><hr>Hopefulness wrote:<DIV>Remember that despite the title and where this is posted this is about signature heals.  Reverence has kind of snuck in as one of them and pairs nicely (IMO) to reactives.  Shame it thas been upgraded into T7 tho.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Kinda disappointed that SG-01 said that being a templar is challenged :smileytongue:</DIV><p>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <span class=date_text>11-14-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:18 AM</span><hr></blockquote>It can be challenging ^_^ Anyhow, if you read the text well, it doesn't really in an upgrade. It will always heal the % of power used, which is more for higher level spell casts. It automatically scales, hence it retains its effectiveness on all levels.

[Hopefulne]

<DIV>it's really a bug then that it greys out, isn't it.  Should really remain like sanctuary.  Tho we'll see after the EoF changes (which will include - hurrah - involuntary line becoming grp wide heals/cures)</DIV>

[Timaarit]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>SG_01 wrote:<blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:Wow. We need minimum of 5 healers for Labs.Then again, I solohealed HoF as lvl 63 templar. We had a few wipes due to me being too close to an AE but anyway.<div></div><hr></blockquote>So then, if we can do content 7 levels above our level, how is a templar shafted?<hr></blockquote>Who said other healers cant do it sooner? Ok, let me rephrase. I could have propbaly solohealed this zone at lvl 60. As for why? Well, my reactives were upgraded at 68 and 70, my big heal was upgraded at 60. So healinwise there wasn't any big difference from lvl 60 to 67. The same applies to all healers. So I'd even say that any healer can soloheal the zone at lvl 60 if they just have a3 heals (like I did at the time). Maybe even earlier, though with solohealing the big direct heal is quite essential. The only reason why it is hard is instant death if you get too close to an AE. This applies to all healers equally since as a plate healer I got oneshotted without exeption.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Timaarit on <span class=date_text>11-14-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:34 PM</span>

[SG_01]

<blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<blockquote><hr>SG_01 wrote:<blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:Wow. We need minimum of 5 healers for Labs.Then again, I solohealed HoF as lvl 63 templar. We had a few wipes due to me being too close to an AE but anyway.<div></div><hr></blockquote>So then, if we can do content 7 levels above our level, how is a templar shafted?<hr></blockquote>Who said other healers cant do it sooner?<div></div><hr></blockquote>I don't care! <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Besides I havn't heard about any healers who did it sooner.<p>Message Edited by SG_01 on <span class=date_text>11-14-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:33 PM</span>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>SG_01 wrote:I don't care! <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Besides I havn't heard about any healers who did it sooner.<p>Message Edited by SG_01 on <span class="date_text">11-14-2006</span> <span class="time_text">02:33 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>If you dont, then who are you trying to convince? You haven't been able to do so for me. On the contrary.<div></div>

[SG_01]

Well, you're trying to say templars are shafted, while we can use content 7 levels above us, which is more than intendend. Then you go "Yea the others may be able to do it earlier", which doesn't say anything about templars at all and lacks proof. Soo, how so are templars shafted?Going even further, if you only look at the negative side, how can you even begin to claim you're looking at the total picture? So far the only thing you've done is shoot down all the positive side feedback, with loose flak. Rather than trying to constructively find a way to make things better, you've only shot down your "enemies". This however incurs the same reactions from the other side, and only makes everyone stuborn.<p>Message Edited by SG_01 on <span class=date_text>11-14-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:43 PM</span>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>SG_01 wrote:Well, you're trying to say templars are shafted, while we can use content 7 levels above us, which is more than intendend. Then you go "Yea the others can do it earlier", which doesn't say anything about templars at all. Soo, how so are templars shafted?<hr></blockquote>You really seem to care after all. That is not what I have been saying and you know it. My guess is that you are intentionally flaming here. Reactives are the only heals that dont always heal their maximum potential even when the target is taking massive damage. Wards and HoT's do.  Yes, it means that when damage is less templars are using less power in healing since the procs are spread out on wider timeframe. BUT WHO CARES?? What kind of healer needs power when MT is at full health the whole fight anyway? In tight situations clerics are the worst healers because the amount of healing scales. <- this is the reason why templars are shafted. Inquisitors are not so much shafted because they actually bring some DPS utility to group. But still they are partly on the same boat.<div></div>

[SG_01]

The extra power there is actually essential in fighting those big raid mobs. It leaves space to heal others if they get in an AE or otherwise get hurt. In a tight situation templars have soo many procs with them that they can easily make it out with the extra power. It makes us more of a defensive style healer than all other healing classes, but that's exactly what we're slated to be.

[Timaarit]

Sigh, again you are talking about something that has absolutely nothing do with my post nor the issue at hand. So again you failed to say anything about the reason why templars are shafted. Try again. <div></div>

[SG_01]

Which ment that your posts did not conveil the information that you inted to give to it. The only thing I've seen you say is that reactives arn't the optimum kind of heal. Which be as may be, but totally don't completely shaft the templar class in general. It only partakes this one part of the whole known as templar. Since you're not even willing to think about about the rest of the class that complements the reactive heals, which are definitly not our only kind of signature heal, I think that's totally close minded of you. At any rate, the only thing you seem to agree with is that reactives are useful in spike damage situations, which you obviously undervalue. Spike damage is a frequent occurance and templars are the best class to handle this kind of damage due to the nature of the reactive heal.If you honestly just found out, you obviously havn't been around since beta, cause discussions about this subject have passed us before, and time and time again, it has been found that templars arn't "shafted" because of it.

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>SG_01 wrote:Which ment that your posts did not conveil the information that you inted to give to it. The only thing I've seen you say is that reactives arn't the optimum kind of heal. Which be as may be, but totally don't completely shaft the templar class in general. It only partakes this one part of the whole known as templar. Since you're not even willing to think about about the rest of the class that complements the reactive heals, which are definitly not our only kind of signature heal, I think that's totally close minded of you. At any rate, the only thing you seem to agree with is that reactives are useful in spike damage situations, which you obviously undervalue. Spike damage is a frequent occurance and templars are the best class to handle this kind of damage due to the nature of the reactive heal.If you honestly just found out, you obviously havn't been around since beta, cause discussions about this subject have passed us before, and time and time again, it has been found that templars arn't "shafted" because of it.<hr></blockquote>Ah, so now it is 'does not totally shaft'. Well, thanks for agreeing with me that templars are shafted. Even though we might disagree on the degree of that. As for reactives being useful on spike damage. Well, <i>any</i> heal is useful on those. Yes, HoT's heal it up a bit slower but wards prevent it even more effectively than reactives. But on any given 15s period, in the end, all healers are very close to the same line if the spike has been optimal for reactives. If not, then you see far less healing from clerics (this occurs if the spike is 1 or 2 big hits instead of lots of smaller). From the scaling follows the fact that on group setting, brawlers are not fond of clerics as their only healers. Plate tanks basically favor furies or inquisitors due to the DPS buffs. This leaves 4 classes out of which templars are the only ones whose healing scales the way it makes them bad. By this I mean that they most likely will scale when they are most needed.<div></div>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Timaarit said:</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Ah, so now it is 'does not totally shaft'. Well, thanks for agreeing with me that templars are shafted. Even though we might disagree on the degree of that.</FONT></P> <P>''Does not totally'' is not the same as say ''are''</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Timaarit said:</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>In tight situations clerics are the worst healers because the amount of healing scales. <- this is the reason why templars are shafted.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>So cleric spells are actually the only ones that scale. And they only scale when it is actually crucial to heal</FONT></P> <P>You have contradicted yourself here. You're saying templars are shafted because templar heals are at their best when ''it is crucial to heal'' (and i'm reading a tight situation as being one of them.)</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Timaarit said:</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>What kind of healer needs power when MT is at full health the whole fight anyway?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>SG-01 </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>said:</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>The extra power there is actually essential in fighting those big raid mobs. It leaves space to heal others if they get in an AE or otherwise get hurt. </FONT></P> <P>Seems to me SG-01 just answered you there timaarit but you went on to slate him stating irrelevance.  Looks like Timaarit is assuming that MT will not be taking any damage and therefore <EM>any</EM> healer would be useless.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Timaarit said:</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>As for reactives being useful on spike damage. Well, <I>any</I> heal is useful on those. Yes, HoT's heal it up a bit slower but wards prevent it even more effectively than reactives. But on any given 15s period, in the end, all healers are very close to the same line if the spike has been optimal for reactives. If not, then you see far less healing from clerics (this occurs if the spike is 1 or 2 big hits instead of lots of smaller).</FONT></P> <P>1. If the damage is coming in at the optimium for a reactive (say the glorious intercession M1 433-530 for 5 ticks) then the mob is doing 480 damage per hit for 5 hits over 8 seconds (as Timaarit suggested the optimal for a single reactive is 1 hit per 1.6 seconds)  5 hits for 480 = 2400 damage in 8 seconds.  In 8 seconds the  Greater bloodflow M1(single target HoT for fury's) will have ticked a maximium of 4 times for 482 = 1928. The defiler ward will ward for 1788.  So the fury and the defiler would have to cast other heals to be as effective, at healing, as the cleric.</P> <P>2.If the damage was optimal for the ward (1788 in 8 seconds since it is a 6 second recast and 2 second cast) then the HoT would cover the damage with 1 more tick of 482HP 2 seconds later.  To heal 1788 damage the reactive would have to tick 4 times for the 480 average to cover the damage. The cleric <EM>may possibly</EM> fall short here and have to use non-signature heals. However it is also possible that the cleric did cover the damage (especially with heal crits in the mix) and still has 1 tick left on the reactive.</P> <P>3.If the damage was optimal for the HoT (and assuming it was cast the <U>instant</U> <U>after</U> the damage started on the MT) then the fury will have healed 482 instantly + 5 ticks of 482 = 2982 in 10 seconds.  The defiler would be needing 1194 in non signature heals. The cleric would have fallen short since the absolute greatest amount the reactive could heal is 2650 over 5 hits.  However the cleric still has far less damage to heal ( even if the reactives ticked for their average 480 ) than the defiler and so uses less mana.</P> <P>Therefore over extended periods - of higher levels of damage - clerics spend less power and heal more.  This supports what has been stated elsewhere that the cleric can heal more difficult content ( high DPS over extended periods ) than the other healers.  In most raids the DPS is exactly this - high levels over extended periods. (and SG-01 pointed this out by solo healing labs)</P> <P>As for specific tank classes. Plate tanks may favour the DPS healers when going up against the easier content but by the proof of the above you're more likely to want clerics against more difficult content.</P> <P>Are templars shafted if slow, big hits are taken?(i.e when healing avoidance tanks)  Add in the number of proc heals (glory and mark, while involuntary has been  buffed to proc on your entire group) the reverence line and the fact that templars buff HP more than any other healer and I'd say no. (especially since the procs can now all be increased by the new EoF aa's)  Do slow big hits reduce templar reactive efficency?  Yes. But then so does extended DPS for wards and big DPS for HoT. </P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <span class=date_text>11-14-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:12 PM</span>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV>Timaarit can you prove you are not biased by writing something good about templars?</DIV>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Hopefulness wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div> <p><font color="#ffff00">Timaarit said:</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Ah, so now it is 'does not totally shaft'. Well, thanks for agreeing with me that templars are shafted. Even though we might disagree on the degree of that.</font></p> <p>''Does not totally'' is not the same as say ''are'' </p> <p><font color="#ff3300">Well, there is much smaller difference than what you think.</font> </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Timaarit said:</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">In tight situations clerics are the worst healers because the amount of healing scales. <- this is the reason why templars are shafted.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">So cleric spells are actually the only ones that scale. And they only scale when it is actually crucial to heal</font></p> <p>You have contradicted yourself here. You're saying templars are shafted because templar heals are at their best when ''it is crucial to heal'' (and i'm reading a tight situation as being one of them.) </p> <p><font color="#ff0000">Umm, reading comprehension maybe. I said templar heals are at their best in <i>certain situations</i>. Usually this is when healing is really needed, but there are crucial healing situations when reactives scale down due to the small amount of incoming hits which still are very high damage.</font> </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Timaarit said:</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">What kind of healer needs power when MT is at full health the whole fight anyway?</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">SG-01 </font><font color="#ffff00">said:</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">The extra power there is actually essential in fighting those big raid mobs. It leaves space to heal others if they get in an AE or otherwise get hurt. </font></p> <p>Seems to me SG-01 just answered you there timaarit but you went on to slate him stating irrelevance.  Looks like Timaarit is assuming that MT will not be taking any damage and therefore <em>any</em> healer would be useless. </p> <p><font color="#ff0000">No. Because in raids a templar has to keep up the reactives up as much as possible. And since the group reactive does not show its procs, it will take off mana in any case. Also the issue really was about solo healing, not raids.</font> </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Timaarit said:</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">As for reactives being useful on spike damage. Well, <i>any</i> heal is useful on those. Yes, HoT's heal it up a bit slower but wards prevent it even more effectively than reactives. But on any given 15s period, in the end, all healers are very close to the same line if the spike has been optimal for reactives. If not, then you see far less healing from clerics (this occurs if the spike is 1 or 2 big hits instead of lots of smaller).</font></p> <p>1. If the damage is coming in at the optimium for a reactive (say the glorious intercession M1 433-530 for 5 ticks) then the mob is doing 480 damage per hit for 5 hits over 8 seconds (as Timaarit suggested the optimal for a single reactive is 1 hit per 1.6 seconds)  5 hits for 480 = 2400 damage in 8 seconds.  In 8 seconds the  Greater bloodflow M1(single target HoT for fury's) will have ticked a maximium of 4 times for 482 = 1928. The defiler ward will ward for 1788.  So the fury and the defiler would have to cast other heals to be as effective, at healing, as the cleric.<font color="#ff0000"> </font></p> <p><font color="#ff0000">Yes. Reactives have about 20% more potential than HoT's and wards. Though HoT can be timed to be recast just as soon as it has ticked off the last tick and thus it will also tick the first time in sometime after that 8 seconds. But again, this is a situation where it really doesn't matter since everything is healed with the basic heals. Make the incoming damage about 4 times as big and use all heals. </font></p> <p>2.If the damage was optimal for the ward (1788 in 8 seconds since it is a 6 second recast and 2 second cast) then the HoT would cover the damage with 1 more tick of 482HP 2 seconds later.  To heal 1788 damage the reactive would have to tick 4 times for the 480 average to cover the damage. The cleric <em>may possibly</em> fall short here and have to use non-signature heals. However it is also possible that the cleric did cover the damage (especially with heal crits in the mix) and still has 1 tick left on the reactive.</p> <p>3.If the damage was optimal for the HoT (and assuming it was cast the <u>instant</u> <u>after</u> the damage started on the MT) then the fury will have healed 482 instantly + 5 ticks of 482 = 2982 in 10 seconds.  The defiler would be needing 1194 in non signature heals. The cleric would have fallen short since the absolute greatest amount the reactive could heal is 2650 over 5 hits.  However the cleric still has far less damage to heal ( even if the reactives ticked for their average 480 ) than the defiler and so uses less mana.</p> <p>Therefore over extended periods - of higher levels of damage - clerics spend less power and heal more.  This supports what has been stated elsewhere that the cleric can heal more difficult content ( high DPS over extended periods ) than the other healers.  In most raids the DPS is exactly this - high levels over extended periods. (and SG-01 pointed this out by solo healing labs) </p> <p><font color="#ff0000">Well, he didn't soloheal labs. I dont think even Disso has ever used one healer there. I think he was talking about HoF. Especially since he was lvl 64 at the time. He also didn't comment to me anything when I changed the subject to HoF. So I guess you have a bit optimistic view about templars. </font></p> </div><hr></blockquote><div></div>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV> <P>''Does not totally'' is not the same as say ''are''<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ff3300>Well, there is much smaller difference than what you think.</FONT></P> <P>But there is still a difference.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Umm, reading comprehension maybe.</FONT></P> <P>Thanks for the attempted insult.  Please stop attempting to after I pointed out your own comprehension</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>I said templar heals are at their best in <I>certain situations</I>. Usually this is when healing is really needed, but there are crucial healing situations when reactives scale down due to the small amount of incoming hits which still are very high damage.</FONT></P> <P>But then shaman and druid heals are at their best in <EM>certain situations</EM> and the point is moot.  Each type of heal has situations when it isn't working as well as the others but, as the examples i provided showed (and you have yet to provide ANY yourself to any post on this forum) reactives are as capable as the other signature heals.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Yes. Reactives have about 20% more potential than HoT's and wards. Though HoT can be timed to be recast just as soon as it has ticked off the last tick and thus it will also tick the first time in sometime after that 8 seconds.</FONT></P> <P>You didn't spot that i used the average on the reactive rather than absolute maximium like with HoT's.  So the potential for the reactive is even greater. </P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>But again, this is a situation where it really doesn't matter since everything is healed with the basic heals. Make the incoming damage about 4 times as big and use all heals.</FONT></P> <P>The whole purpose of this thread was to show that reactive principle shaft templar's.  Quadruple the damage and nothing changes.  Use all the heals and the purpose of the thread is gone.  Feel free to set an example to support your opinion yourself.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>So I guess you have a bit optimistic view about templars.</FONT></P> <P>You mean you have a pessimistic view of templars.  I agree that templars are not the be all and end all of healing but then you haven't said anything about the templars that is good. (and you also didn't dispute my conclusion-even with you normal unsupported comments)  Feel free to. People will stop believing you are biased against them.<BR></P></DIV>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Hopefulness wrote:<div> <p>''Does not totally'' is not the same as say ''are''</p> <p><font color="#ff3300">Well, there is much smaller difference than what you think.</font></p> <p>But there is still a difference.</p> <p><font color="#ff0000">Umm, reading comprehension maybe.</font></p> <p>Thanks for the attempted insult.  Please stop attempting to after I pointed out your own comprehension</p> <p><font color="#ff0000">I said templar heals are at their best in <i>certain situations</i>. Usually this is when healing is really needed, but there are crucial healing situations when reactives scale down due to the small amount of incoming hits which still are very high damage.</font></p> <p>But then shaman and druid heals are at their best in <em>certain situations</em> and the point is moot.  Each type of heal has situations when it isn't working as well as the others but, as the examples i provided showed (and you have yet to provide ANY yourself to any post on this forum) reactives are as capable as the other signature heals.</p></div><hr></blockquote>Nope. Hence the reading comprehension. This was not a comparison between classes. It was a comparison on one classes heals in certain situations. This is comparison between classes: Shamans and druids can always heal up to their maximum potential if that is needed. Clerics cannot due to their heals scaling according to the amount of incoming hits. Thus when someone takes massive damage, shamans and druids can <i>always</i> use their full potential while clerics can if they win on the lotto and the damage is done with large amount of hits instead of a few. So it really is you who hasn't understood the difference between classes. And it seems you haven't undersood much of my posts either. On purpose maybe?<div></div>

[Hopefulne]

<P><FONT color=#ff0000>This was not a comparison between classes. It was a comparison on one classes heals in certain situations. <BR></FONT></P> <P>Yes  it is.  The first post in this thread was comparing the signature heals of the classes as the reason for the templars being shafted. Besides what were you comparing the templar heals <EM><STRONG>to</STRONG></EM> in these certain situations if not other heals and therefore other classes?</P> <P> </P> <P>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <SPAN class=date_text>11-15-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:59 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <span class=date_text>11-15-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:17 AM</span>

[Boli32]

If you are just comparing specility heals then allow me to direct your attention to <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spells&message.id=9434" target=_blank>this thread</a>Have a good read and then come back and tell us how 'shafted' templars are... this is before the other tricks the healing classes can bring to bare (druids more heals, shamans debuffs, clerics debuffs and better buffs).Different methods and nearly every one of them equal in the end. Reactives if you notice out heal every other signature heal with the least power spent in most cases.<div></div>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Hopefulness wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <p><font color="#ff0000">This was not a comparison between classes. It was a comparison on one classes heals in certain situations. </font></p> <p>Yes  it is.  The first post in this thread was comparing the signature heals of the classes as the reason for the templars being shafted. Besides what were you comparing the templar heals <em><strong>to</strong></em> in these certain situations if not other heals and therefore other classes?</p><hr></blockquote>Ah, you are putting words to my mouth now. Well you are wrong, it wasn't a comparison between classes. Go read my post again. I was comparing templar reactives on an optimal situation to a situation where the hits are not optimal. It really amazes me how difficult this can be to understand. Reactives will not always heal up to their maximum potential even though target is taking high damage. Thus they scale. That is not a comparison between classes, it is a comparison between different situations for a single healer. The following is: Since reactives scale, they will not always be as good at healing as wards and HoT's even though someone is taking far more damage than what could be healed even in optimal situation. Reactives having higher maximum potential is not enough compensation for the fact that HoT's heal even if the opponent is stunned and the group HoT heals the whole group. When compared to wards, wards have the advantage of preventing an otherwise deadly hit. Something you cant do with HoTs or reactives.<div></div>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>boli wrote:If you are just comparing specility heals then allow me to direct your attention to <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spells&message.id=9434" target="_blank">this thread</a><hr></blockquote>No I wasn't. If you can always heal just by specialty heals, well, why complain how difficult it is.<div></div>

[Whitemane]

<P>Well Im going to try and stay out of the mud slinging but I do disagree Timaarit. At least with this:</P> <P><BR><FONT color=#cc00ff>This is comparison between classes: Shamans and druids can always heal up to their maximum potential if that is needed. Clerics cannot due to their heals scaling according to the amount of incoming hits. Thus when someone takes massive damage, shamans and druids can <I>always</I> use their full potential while clerics can if they win on the lotto and the damage is done with large amount of hits instead of a few.</FONT><BR></P> <P>On the ward front you are correct as far as it goes assuming constant damage. However when it comes to the druids No.</P> <P> First off the 1 problem is time. HoT's take time, wards and reactives do not, sure assuming that your tank does not die HoT's will always heal their maximum amount ( If there is any damage to heal ) and reactives and wards will not. Where druids suffer is when they get a constant stream of damage ( check the link Boli linked up above). HoT's cannot keep up with the damage recieved between ticks of the heal. I'd hazzard a guess to say though all healers are probably in trouble here due to recasts but druids have it worse. </P> <P>Second is that your also making the assumption that the damage stops ( Spike Damage ). Yup Druids can deal with this easier than us as well they dont have to juggle the fact the tank has to get hurt more for us to heal him ( to a point ). But if your dealing with hard hitting mobs I'd rather a cleric or Shaman healing me over a Druid.</P> <P>As for our lotto heals. Come on now if anyone relies on Involuntary and GoB to do their healing they need to have thier Templar Club card revoked. Marks 41 points is not likely to be winning edge you need. Our lotto heals are nice for raids and GoB used to be very nice in groups ( though with Blessings its not too bad again ) but for standard group settings they are hardly a healing edge over anyone.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Hopefulness wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P>''Does not totally'' is not the same as say ''are''<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ff3300>Well, there is much smaller difference than what you think.</FONT></P> <P>But there is still a difference.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Umm, reading comprehension maybe.</FONT></P> <P>Thanks for the attempted insult.  Please stop attempting to after I pointed out your own comprehension</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>I said templar heals are at their best in <I>certain situations</I>. Usually this is when healing is really needed, but there are crucial healing situations when reactives scale down due to the small amount of incoming hits which still are very high damage.</FONT></P> <P>But then shaman and druid heals are at their best in <EM>certain situations</EM> and the point is moot.  Each type of heal has situations when it isn't working as well as the others but, as the examples i provided showed (and you have yet to provide ANY yourself to any post on this forum) reactives are as capable as the other signature heals.</P></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Nope. Hence the reading comprehension. This was not a comparison between classes. It was a comparison on one classes heals in certain situations. <BR><BR>This is comparison between classes: Shamans and druids can always heal up to their maximum potential if that is needed. Clerics cannot due to their heals scaling according to the amount of incoming hits. Thus when someone takes massive damage, shamans and druids can <I>always</I> use their full potential while clerics can if they win on the lotto and the damage is done with large amount of hits instead of a few.<BR><BR>So it really is you who hasn't understood the difference between classes. And it seems you haven't undersood much of my posts either. On purpose maybe?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Timaarit]

Well Whitemane, if HoT's are not healing, then the target is at full health. I dont see a problem here healingwise. On the other hand, reactives need the target to be hit in order to heal. So target doesnät have to be at full health and reactives can still lose potential. HoTs and ward lose it only when target is at full health. <div></div>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>This was not a comparison between classes.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>then you are very off topic since this thread, according to the first post, is about how reactives compare to other signature heals in a specific situation as the reason for the poster believing templars being shafted. Go back and reread that first post.</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT><BR><FONT color=#ff0000>I was comparing templar reactives on an optimal situation to a situation where the hits are not optimal</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To what purpose?   ''in this situation reactives do not heal as much as in this situation''  ok. What about it? If you are not comparing the signature heals then you cannot say templars are shafted compared to other healers<STRONG><EM> as this is the purpose of the thread</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>The following is: Since reactives scale, they will not always be as good at healing as wards and HoT's even though someone is taking far more damage than what could be healed even in optimal situation.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok now you're comparing classes. But by the same system, because reactives scale, they can heal more effectively than wards or HoTs (even though someone is taking far more damage than what could be healed even in optimal situation.)  Saying reactive do not heal effectively when taking slow, heavy hits is not a good reason to say templars are shafted because wards and HoTs have comparable situations when they cannot heal as effectively as reactives. </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <span class=date_text>11-15-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:10 PM</span>

[Hopefulne]

<P>Whitemane was talking about HoTs not scaling quickly enough to keep the tank alive when damage is constant.  </P><p>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <span class=date_text>11-15-2006</span> <span class=time_text>10:13 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Hopefulness wrote:<div></div>  <div>Ok now you're comparing classes. But by the same system, because reactives scale, they can heal more effectively than wards or HoTs (even though someone is taking far more damage than what could be healed even in optimal situation.)  Saying reactive do not heal effectively when taking slow, heavy hits is not a good reason to say templars are shafted because wards and HoTs have comparable situations when they cannot heal as effectively as reactives. </div> <hr></blockquote>Well, it seems you don't understand the healing classes. As it is, a druid will outheal a cleric over time when using all methods possible for healing. It is a calculated fact and yes, there are posts about it. The only time a cleric is outhealing a druid in when you pick up a 8s period on some fight where mob is hitting more than once per 1,6s. But if the mob is hitting that fast for longer duration, druids will heal more. As I said, reactives are only part of the healing and comparing one type of heal to another does not give any kind of correct result. It is the maximum potential with all heals that count and as it is, <i>clerics potential is the only one that scales with the amount of incoming hits. </i>I am still waiting for any kind of comment as for why this isn't an issue since the maximum potential is equal within 10 or so %. Clerics can lose 20 to 30% from their maximum potential when hits are coming in slowly.<div></div>

[Boli32]

<blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<blockquote><hr>Hopefulness wrote:<div></div>  <div>Ok now you're comparing classes. But by the same system, because reactives scale, they can heal more effectively than wards or HoTs (even though someone is taking far more damage than what could be healed even in optimal situation.)  Saying reactive do not heal effectively when taking slow, heavy hits is not a good reason to say templars are shafted because wards and HoTs have comparable situations when they cannot heal as effectively as reactives. </div> <hr></blockquote>Well, it seems you don't understand the healing classes. As it is, a druid will outheal a cleric over time when using all methods possible for healing. It is a calculated fact and yes, there are posts about it. The only time a cleric is outhealing a druid in when you pick up a 8s period on some fight where mob is hitting more than once per 1,6s. But if the mob is hitting that fast for longer duration, druids will heal more. As I said, reactives are only part of the healing and comparing one type of heal to another does not give any kind of correct result. It is the maximum potential with all heals that count and as it is, <i>clerics potential is the only one that scales with the amount of incoming hits. </i>I am still waiting for any kind of comment as for why this isn't an issue since the maximum potential is equal within 10 or so %. Clerics can lose 20 to 30% from their maximum potential when hits are coming in slowly.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Druids are dewigned to HEAL more damage than the other 2 priest classes... because they don't PREVENT anhy damage whatso ever. A reactive an ward prevent damage up to their total value in effect giving the tank more health a 4000 tank with a 400 reactive on takes a 4.2k hit - alive. a 4000 tank with a 1200 ward on takes a 4.2k hit - alive. a 4000 tank with a 400 regen on takes a 4.3k hit - dies, There is no 'buffer' to absorb damage, heck a druid only gets to add +281 health to ther MT... that compares to 1.5k for templars... Druids may have the highest healing potential of all the healers but no damage preventoin whatsoever.... should I say Druid are 'shafted' quoting ths exmaple... no they have other qualities and just showing one where they fail no. Every healer has advantages and disadvatnages in different circumstances.<div></div>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>boli wrote:Druids are dewigned to HEAL more damage than the other 2 priest classes... because they don't PREVENT anhy damage whatso ever. A reactive an ward prevent damage up to their total value in effect giving the tank more health a 4000 tank with a 400 reactive on takes a 4.2k hit - alive<div></div><hr></blockquote>Incorrect. The tank dies in this case with no healing. The reactive does not heal a dead player.<div></div>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>Well, it seems you don't understand the healing classes.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How?  I pointed out that there are situations where each signature heal is less effectively.  Exactly as you did for reactives.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>As it is, a druid will outheal a cleric over time when using all methods possible for healing. It is a calculated fact and yes, there are posts about it</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes the druid can outheal the cleric but we've agreed reactives scale to damage far more effectively than HoTs and the link boli  (the healing guide on page <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spells&message.id=9434" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spells&message.id=9434</A>) provided earlier proved that this is situational and that reactive are as capable as HoTs or wards. (And far more capably than me. Bless you Lord Soko :smileywink: )</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>It is the maximum potential with all heals that count and as it is, <EM>clerics potential is the only one that scales with the amount of incoming <FONT color=#ff0000>hits. </FONT></EM></FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>I am still waiting for any kind of comment as for why this isn't an issue</FONT></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV>To take damage there <EM><STRONG><U>must</U></STRONG></EM> be a hit. If there are no hits there is no damage but HoT lose potential because it ticks regardless. </DIV>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV>Yeah wards are the only speciality heal which will ''prevent'' death if hit for more than the remaining health. Bu this is part of teh reason why wards are less mana efficient than reactives or HoTs.  </DIV><p>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <span class=date_text>11-16-2006</span> <span class=time_text>11:05 AM</span>

[SG_01]

<blockquote><hr>boli wrote:<b>Within 1 second:</b>a 4000 tank with a 400 reactive on takes <i>3 hits totalling 4.2k damage</i> - alive.a 4000 tank with a 1200 ward on takes <i>3 hits totalling 4.2k damage</i> - alive.a 4000 tank with a 400 regen on takes <i>3 hits totalling 4.2k damage</i> - dies,There is no 'buffer' to absorb damage, heck a druid only gets to add+281 health to ther MT... that compares to 1.5k for templars... Druidsmay have the highest healing potential of all the healers but no damagepreventoin whatsoever.... should I say Druid are 'shafted' quoting thsexmaple... no they have other qualities and just showing one where theyfail no. Every healer has advantages and disadvatnages in differentcircumstances.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Fixed to make it more realistic and accurate. To be more accurate, this stays correct even if there are two hits, as long as one of the hits is not less than 400. Next to that, you are often fighting multiple mobs (big encounters), which for the same reasons, give templars an edge.<p>Message Edited by SG_01 on <span class=date_text>11-16-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:34 PM</span>

[SG_01]

Also, let's take a look at a situation where the reactive is far superior:In some instances you have like 20 mobs attack your group. Think like the drakes in HoF or the spiders in ... Well forgot the name. At any rate, there's a whole bunch of them, they don't do a whole lot of damage per mob, but with a mob like that, damage accumulates fast. Clerics, having reactives will only have to have their reactives up when the tank gets down to 50%. However the druids will highly likely lose their tank, if they only use their HoTs. Just using wards doesn't quite work in this situation either, unless you time your wards perfectly.Result: A tank can pull all 4 drake groups with a cleric, but can't with a druid. A shaman might work out alright, but it won't be as easy as havnig a cleric in group.Conclusion: Druids are shafted at any mob that has a significantly higher dps than their HoTs have hps. Clerics actually have a big advantage in these situations over druids. Shaman are just overall high power using healers, that work well in both situations. As such I conclude that templars are not as shafted as you might think, and that druids may actually be more shafted with their heals than we are. In perfect situations where only 1 mob is fought, druids seem to have the upperhand. However this requires advanced crowd control that not all groups have, as well as a group that never pulls adds or get into any sticky situations. If you do not have the perfect group, a cleric seems to be preferable over a druid due to fact that they get more efficient in their heals with each extra mob.<p>Message Edited by SG_01 on <span class=date_text>11-16-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:54 PM</span>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>SG_01 wrote:<blockquote><hr>boli wrote:<b>Within 1 second:</b>a 4000 tank with a 400 reactive on takes <i>3 hits totalling 4.2k damage</i> - alive.a 4000 tank with a 1200 ward on takes <i>3 hits totalling 4.2k damage</i> - alive.a 4000 tank with a 400 regen on takes <i>3 hits totalling 4.2k damage</i> - dies,<hr></blockquote>Fixed to make it more realistic and accurate. To be more accurate, this stays correct even if there are two hits, as long as one of the hits is not less than 400. Next to that, you are often fighting multiple mobs (big encounters), which for the same reasons, give templars an edge.<hr></blockquote>Rrright. I can actually HEAR the goalposts moving.<div></div>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>SG_01 wrote:Also, let's take a look at a situation where the reactive is far superior:In some instances you have like 20 mobs attack your group. Think like the drakes in HoF or the spiders in ... <hr></blockquote>Guess what a fury does on that mob when solohealing. First HoT on, the hibernation and finally Thunderstorm. 2k DPS and group all in green after fight.<div></div>

[SG_01]

Soo, that still doesn't cover the fact that HoTs alone arn't up for the fight?

[Timaarit]

What doesn't? On that particular fight, reactives are down in first second and have healed less than 25% of their potential since the mobs hit so low damage. HoT's heal 8 seconds after still and most likely for their full potential. That fight is a poor example since it really doesn't require any kind of healing in order to survive. Even when a mage gets aggro, they can easily live through it with no healing. <div></div>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>What doesn't? On that particular fight, reactives are down in first second and have healed less than 25% of their potential since the mobs hit so low damage</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Actually in that particular instance the cleric waits til the tank is in the yellow and then casts their single target reactive. Rinse, repeat. You use less mana than the fury and will maintain the tank HP better than the fury if even more turn up since your spike damage control is better. (what about other classes since you're comparing to ''the best in game'') and have used 100% of the reactives potential.  This is actually how a couple of my guildies pull in most zones and i have never run out of mana doing it - everyone runs outs before me.  Group HP are topped up using amending fate.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>That fight is a poor example since it really doesn't require any kind of healing in order to survive</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Then you tank hasn't pulled enough mobs to make it fun</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And what about the reactive signature heal ''shafts'' templars? Any more than HoT ''shaft'' druid and wards ''shaft'' shaman?</DIV>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Hopefulness wrote: <div><font color="#ff0000">That fight is a poor example since it really doesn't require any kind of healing in order to survive</font></div> <div> </div> <div>Then you tank hasn't pulled enough mobs to make it fun</div> <div> </div> <div>And what about the reactive signature heal ''shafts'' templars? Any more than HoT ''shaft'' druid and wards ''shaft'' shaman?</div><hr></blockquote>I see. This is the level of your interpretation. We always run into the middle there and just AE. So as usual, you are wrong.<div></div>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV>You're right i have jumped the gun and thought you were talking about the multi add fight there. But taking a hypothecial situation and saying it isn't realistic to disprove it is strange.  Especially suggesting to use non speciality heals in a hypothecial situation of only speciality heal is even more strange - considering the moment someone had suggesting templars would be proccing and cast anything else in their arsenal would have received the reply ''and non templars wouldn't be using their other heals?  As usual blah blah blah.''</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And please explain <U>how reactives ''shaft'' templars.</U>  </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <SPAN class=date_text>11-17-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:47 PM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <SPAN class=date_text>11-17-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:56 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <span class=date_text>11-17-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:05 PM</span>

[Chog]

<P>Mmm....  Gotta love heal debates.</P> <P>We all know reactives arch enemy is slow hits that deal a lot of damage.  So the question is, what encounters have large amounts of damage from a single attack with 4 seconds or more in between attacks and no other incoming damage?</P>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Chogar wrote:<div></div> <p>Mmm....  Gotta love heal debates.</p> <p>We all know reactives arch enemy is slow hits that deal a lot of damage.  So the question is, what encounters have large amounts of damage from a single attack with 4 seconds or more in between attacks and no other incoming damage?</p><hr></blockquote>I haven't actually talked about attacks. Attacks can be avoided. When I am grouped with a templar, it is not a rare case for my monk to get stoneskin proc and then see it dissipate because I avoid every hit after that. And still I am low health because the direct heals just dont cover the previous damage.<div></div>

[Chog]

<P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Chogar wrote:<BR> <P>Mmm....  Gotta love heal debates.</P> <P>We all know reactives arch enemy is slow hits that deal a lot of damage.  So the question is, what encounters have large amounts of damage from a single attack with 4 seconds or more in between attacks and no other incoming damage?</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I haven't actually talked about attacks. Attacks can be avoided. When I am grouped with a templar, it is not a rare case for my monk to get stoneskin proc and then see it dissipate because I avoid every hit after that. And still I am low health because the direct heals just dont cover the previous damage.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I never said you Timaarit, the opening post did list 4 seconds between attacks though and no other damage.  I was curious as to how many encounters have 4 seconds between every attack and no other damage.  Healing avoidance tanks is not the strong point of reactives, I doubt anybody would disagree with that; however, Clerics can keep avoidance tanks alive if they use other heals.  But the opening post was not talking about other heals they where talking about combat with 4+ seconds between attacks and I was curious how many encounters existed that had that long of an attack delay.</P>

[Timaarit]

That is again subjective, 'keep alive' I mean. Sure clerics can do it but other will do it better. Have you ever tried healing someone after a fight? You have 2 direct heals (+ groupheal if that person is in group). Shamans have the same problems here while druids heal those over 2x as fast as others. Now if the target takes one big hit in the middle? Shamans wards heal at full, druids will heal afterwards while reactives use 12 to 20% of their capacity and then clerics are back at using direct heals. Now someone cas certainly say that what if target is hit for 10 times in 2 seconds and so one. Well, have you ever seen that? A mob that hits fast to start with and then slows pace to wait for reactives recast? I doubt it, if mob hits that for 2s, it will continue hitting so. Thus reactives might be what keep the target up in the beginning but if HoTs or wards are not enough, then on the long run, reactives will not be either. Anyway, many mobs will actually be hitting with slow intervals. Which ones and what is the hitting interval are dependant on luck. Again, templar heals are luckdependant. Lotto heals. If you win, you can heal, if you lose, you wont. <div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR>That is again subjective, 'keep alive' I mean. Sure clerics can do it but other will do it better.<BR><BR>Have you ever tried healing someone after a fight? You have 2 direct heals (+ groupheal if that person is in group). Shamans have the same problems here while druids heal those over 2x as fast as others. Now if the target takes one big hit in the middle? Shamans wards heal at full, druids will heal afterwards while reactives use 12 to 20% of their capacity and then clerics are back at using direct heals.<BR><BR>Now someone cas certainly say that what if target is hit for 10 times in 2 seconds and so one. Well, have you ever seen that? A mob that hits fast to start with and then slows pace to wait for reactives recast? I doubt it, if mob hits that for 2s, it will continue hitting so. Thus reactives might be what keep the target up in the beginning but if HoTs or wards are not enough, then on the long run, reactives will not be either.<BR><BR>Anyway, many mobs will actually be hitting with slow intervals. Which ones and what is the hitting interval are dependant on luck. Again, templar heals are luckdependant. Lotto heals. If you win, you can heal, if you lose, you wont.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>Ok, I've been hitting raids and instances all week with a Monk as MT and myself as the only healer.  According to these forums and the monk forums, we should both have been nothing more than stains on the floor, what with her reduced defensive abilities and my apparant inability to heal as well as <EM>das uberdruids</EM>.  Yet, here we go...killing smaller epics and instances all the live long day.  How is this possible!?  According to Timaarit, this should not be possible.  We should be dead, mangled, and utterly unable to so much as stand on our own legs after fights without an emergency triage and surgeon.  </P> <P>Yet, there we go, monk and templar, side by side, killing against apparantly "impossible" odds.    </P> <P>Seriously, the doom and gloom got old after the first expansion, didn't it?  After all, the "lotto heals" are heals we have that are over and above the heals other priests get.  These aren't in place of standard heals - these are extra.  These aren't spells we should be relying upon at all.  These are spells designed to help and assist.  If you're ignoring heals on your group mates because you're concentrating on firing off every possible debuff or triggered heal on every target you fight, yes, your groups will die.  </P> <P>Of course, when you're in Obelisk of Blight and the fighter accidently pulls half of a room of yellow triple-ups by mistake due to the extensive hate range, and you're the only healer, and you're in a group full of casters all grabbing some of the adds...logic like that displayed above would seem to indicate that you're about to wipe.  If you're in my group, that means I'm about to fire off both emergency zero-cost heals, drop all single target heals on the monk tank, then pop Divine Recovery (you ever going to bother getting around to your first 50 Achievement points, Timaarit?) to increase casting speed, drop Divine Arbitration (remember that spell) on the group to save two of the mages, then pop complacency (because -  let's face it - you just got hate from all the heals), pop Glorious Intercession one more time on the monk, and then finally drop Focused Intercession on her as well while sitting back waiting for the 15 triggers to get used.</P> <P>Yeah...no one died.  Imagine that.  Somehow, we managed against all our perceived weaknesses to actually do our jobs?  That could never happen, right?  Seriously, to speak of "subjective" when you spend most of your arguments telling the rest of us how broken we are compared to other healers, one might be tempted to come to the conclusion that you don't play to potential.  After all, if you really thought the class was strong, you might actually be able to focus on what is possible for us instead of what you think is impossible.</P> <P align=center><EM>"Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're probably right."  - Henry Ford</EM></P> <P><BR></P>

[Chog]

<P></P> <HR> <P></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Timaarit wrote:<BR>That is again subjective, 'keep alive' I mean. Sure clerics can do it but other will do it better.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>And clerics can keep others up easier in other situations.  Funny how that works.</FONT><BR><BR>Have you ever tried healing someone after a fight? You have 2 direct heals (+ groupheal if that person is in group). Shamans have the same problems here while druids heal those over 2x as fast as others. Now if the target takes one big hit in the middle? Shamans wards heal at full, druids will heal afterwards while reactives use 12 to 20% of their capacity and then clerics are back at using direct heals.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I do not try to heal after a fight, I let food take care of it.  If the tank is in the red, that better mean everybody else is low on power and will need a break anyways.  So after combat healing is not a big deal,</FONT><BR><BR>Now someone cas certainly say that what if target is hit for 10 times in 2 seconds and so one. Well, have you ever seen that? A mob that hits fast to start with and then slows pace to wait for reactives recast? I doubt it, if mob hits that for 2s, it will continue hitting so. Thus reactives might be what keep the target up in the beginning but if HoTs or wards are not enough, then on the long run, reactives will not be either.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I have not seen a single mob hit that fast; however,  I have seen encounters hit that fast.  And the hits get slower because the single mobs in the encounter die off leaving less attacks at the end.</FONT><BR><BR>Anyway, many mobs will actually be <U>hitting</U> with slow intervals. Which ones and what is the hitting interval are dependant on<U> luck</U>. Again, templar heals are luckdependant. Lotto heals. If you win, you can heal, if you lose, you wont.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Hitting and luck are the key words there.  With bad luck an avoidance tank will get hit multiple times in a row and a Druid will not be able to keep up with specialty heals alone.  That is what we call situational.  I am still looking for an encounter that has a 4 second or more delay that we can base all of this theory healing on.  If we are basing it off of "specific" situations to put reactives in the worse light, then fine state it as such.</FONT></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>Have you ever tried healing someone after a fight?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gotta say i find this statement interesting.  Apart from the fate line healing the grp when the target died, and having the equal biggest single target direct heals in the game, and reactives ticking the heal when damage is taken - why would this be a balance issue?  Why would you need to heal out of a fight?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00></FONT> </DIV>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Hopefulness wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>Have you ever tried healing someone after a fight?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gotta say i find this statement interesting.  Apart from the fate line healing the grp when the target died, and having the equal biggest single target direct heals in the game, and reactives ticking the heal when damage is taken - why would this be a balance issue?  Why would you need to heal out of a fight?</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's a great point.  During big fights with multiple opponents, I'm typically firing off Amending Fate immediately after Spurn.  With the current level I have on the spell and the 3 points I spent in Enhance: Fate, I'm healing my entire group for well over 1200 health every single kill.  It's one of the most efficient heal spells I can think of right now.</P> <P><BR> </P>

[Archill]

Don't forget our daze/stun spells. Even EoF named fall victim to it.<div></div>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Hopefulness wrote:<div><font color="#ff3300">Have you ever tried healing someone after a fight?</font></div> <div> </div> <div>Gotta say i find this statement interesting.  Apart from the fate line healing the grp when the target died, and having the equal biggest single target direct heals in the game, and reactives ticking the heal when damage is taken - why would this be a balance issue?  Why would you need to heal out of a fight?</div> <div> </div><hr></blockquote>Well, if you had actually read the next sentence or two... Well... you never know.<div></div>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Of course, when you're in Obelisk of Blight and the fighter accidently pulls half of a room of yellow triple-ups by mistake due to the extensive hate range, and you're the only healer, and you're in a group full of casters all grabbing some of the adds...<i>logic like that displayed above</i> would seem to indicate that you're about to wipe.</p><hr></blockquote>No. My logic has just two words. Feign Death. Which makes me doubt your story.<div></div>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>Well, if you had actually read the next sentence or two... Well... you never know.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV> <DIV>Hmm next few sentances goes on to talk about how many and how fast the direct heals are of the classes compared to each other...don't see why you tried to deflect the issue with fluff rather than...maybe...possibly...make a point</DIV> <DIV>Plus you said went on to say reactives waste 12-20% of their potential on massive hits-How does this affect balance against wards which heal 70% of the average reactive? (1700ward compared to 2400reactive) or the HoT? (similar average but only over shorter periods with no damage scaling)</DIV> <DIV>And now you know. </DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Hopefulness on <span class=date_text>11-19-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:02 AM</span>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>My logic has just two words. Feign Death. Which makes me doubt your story</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Because there is never a time when it cannot be used, (recast timers) and wouldn't solve the problem. ( ansy caster nuked and is next in the hate list after the FD) Regardless the story sounds comparable to seeing a couple of tanks in ob of blight for the first time myself but it must be doubted because fd wasn't used. /sarcasm </DIV> <DIV>Mit changes are a big influence as well - but i doubt you've tested your templar healing abilities since EoF was released.</DIV>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>Now someone cas certainly say that what if target is hit for 10 times in 2 seconds and so one. Well, have you ever seen that?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes a multi toon mob.  Up to 6 in those mobs. Or several adds etc</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>A mob that hits fast to start with and then slows pace to wait for reactives recast? I doubt it</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>True but then you do not have to precast and you can cast it when the tank is in the yellow for maximum reactive heal ( for the lower damage mobs any how) </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Thus reactives might be what keep the target up in the beginning but if HoTs or wards are not enough, then on the long run, reactives will not be either</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Reactives scale to damage (unlike HoTs) and cost less mana-per-HP than wards while having more potential than either.   In the long run reactives are as capable as wards or reactives -<EM> which has yet to be disproved in a similar unbiased comparison such as  </EM><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spells&message.id=9434" target=_blank><EM>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spells&message.id=9434</EM></A><EM> </EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>Anyway, many mobs will actually be hitting with slow intervals</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Who?  When? Where? and how do you know?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Which ones and what is the hitting interval are dependant on luck</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lotto is a proc. Lotto is not a <U>guarenteed</U> heal when damaged a.k.a reactive</DIV>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Hopefulness wrote:<div><font color="#ff3300">My logic has just two words. Feign Death. Which makes me doubt your story</font></div> <div> </div> <div>Because there is never a time when it cannot be used, (recast timers) and wouldn't solve the problem. ( ansy caster nuked and is next in the hate list after the FD) Regardless the story sounds comparable to seeing a couple of tanks in ob of blight for the first time myself but it must be doubted because fd wasn't used. /sarcasm </div> <div>Mit changes are a big influence as well - but i doubt you've tested your templar healing abilities since EoF was released.</div><hr></blockquote>Well, Kend actually didn't say they had that monk tanking in that fight, he just said 'fighter'. So I think he was just making the whole post up. He did say he has been doing the instances with monk as tank. Well I have tanked them with a monk. He then proceeded to say how good both classes are because of the story he wrote. But it seems that the monk wasn't even tanking at that place. On the other hand, if he was, then they really n00Bed the pull.<div></div>

[SG_01]

Basically Timaarit, you've failed your discussion class, go back and try it again. This forum is to be constructive, not destructive like you are being. I'm quite through with this discussion and consider yourself reported

[Timaarit]

So you are basically reporting me because you disagree and haven't been able to convince me. Sigh. One cry comes to mind, but that might actually get me banned. <div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: <P>Of course, when you're in Obelisk of Blight and the fighter accidently pulls half of a room of yellow triple-ups by mistake due to the extensive hate range, and you're the only healer, and you're in a group full of casters all grabbing some of the adds...<I>logic like that displayed above</I> would seem to indicate that you're about to wipe.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>No. My logic has just two words. Feign Death. Which makes me doubt your story.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Feign doesn't work if there are reactives on the tank.  </P> <P>Really though, it wouldn't be the first time you've "doubted my story".  Not all that long ago, you told me I couldn't possibly be hitting 400+DPS with a raid healer's build...then I posted screenshots showing me consistently hitting 5-600...and that was before Echoes of Faydwer.  Remember that?  Need a link?</P> <P>You've claimed that you can only achieve 150 or so DPS while soloing.  You've claimed that you can only reach 300 in groups. However, instead of asking for help in getting better as a player, you place the blame for your lower numbers squarely on the shoulders of the developers.   If this is the best you personally can perform, no wonder you personally think the class is broken.  And if that's how badly you're performing with damage dealing, who knows how you perform as a healer.</P> <P>You could be basing your entire opinions of how "bad" the class is on your own playstyle or abilities as a player.  How would any of us know the difference?  You've never once given away your character's name or server.  You don't mention your guild.  You keep such information secretive, telling the rest of us from your anonymous shadows how badly we all have it - all the while, it could very well be that the class is just fine, but your ability to play it is not.</P> <P>This is supported by the fact that you've claimed you don't enjoy playing your Templar, and that you only play your Templar when no one else in your guild will play a Templar on raids.  I can't possibly be the only Templar who feels that you may hardly be the best authority on how a Templar is capable of performing when played well, based on just what you've stated regarding your attitude towards the class.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Hopefulness wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>My logic has just two words. Feign Death. Which makes me doubt your story</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Because there is never a time when it cannot be used, (recast timers) and wouldn't solve the problem. ( ansy caster nuked and is next in the hate list after the FD) Regardless the story sounds comparable to seeing a couple of tanks in ob of blight for the first time myself but it must be doubted because fd wasn't used. /sarcasm </DIV> <DIV>Mit changes are a big influence as well - but i doubt you've tested your templar healing abilities since EoF was released.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Well, Kend actually didn't say they had that monk tanking in that fight, he just said 'fighter'. So I think he was just making the whole post up. He did say he has been doing the instances with monk as tank. Well I have tanked them with a monk. He then proceeded to say how good both classes are because of the story he wrote. But it seems that the monk wasn't even tanking at that place. <BR><BR>On the other hand, if he was, then they really n00Bed the pull.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>It was <A href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/characters/character_profile.vm?characterId=107560101" target=_blank>Lorelily</A>.  She's a monk.  She's hardly a "n00b", but sometimes - just once in a while - pulls go bad (especially when you're rushing through an instance as fast as you can and the <A href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/characters/character_profile.vm?characterId=105807101" target=_blank>templar</A> in your group drops reactives on you constantly and oh yeah, group feign is still down).  However, if you want to judge her sight unseen, please post your own monk's link for a comparison.  While you're at it, post your templar's link.  </P> <P>I've run several instances with her as primary tank - in Beta and now on Live.  I've run Obelisk every day since release and Valdoon's every day but one.  Lorelily has tanked roughly 1/3 of those, and when she does, she's the only fighter in our group.  Roughly half the time she tanks, I'm her only healer.  </P> <P> </P>

[Timaarit]

<blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div><>Feign doesn't work if there are reactives on the tank. <><hr></blockquote>Which is why I never precast reactives on a monk nor do I pull as a monk if I have any reactives, HoTs or wards on me.<div></div>

[StevusX]

<P>Got to say i agree with Kendrickes comments once again  /sigh :smileytongue:</P> <P>After LU13 i was vociferous in stating we, as a class, were severely broken and suffering.  </P> <P>Soe gradually made changes over a few months that brought us back to playability.  We have been there ever since imo Tamaarit.</P> <P>We are NOT broken. Like any class there are tweaks i would love to see, and personally as EQ2 is a very combat centric game i do believe the spread of dps between the highest and lowest classes should be narrowed - mobs tend to be tweaked to the high dps types which DOES make it challenging to us. Not impossible but challenging.</P> <P>I do not believe we are remotely broken when it comes to healing however. Sure the way the different heals work mean that, situationally, sometimes we struggle, and sometimes other classes struggle. /shrug.</P> <P>Healing a monk - yep we can do this. I play a mix of guild groups and pugs. I dont care which class the tank is <EM>as long as they know how to play decently.</EM></P> <P>I have solo healed monks thru many dungeons, its more "interesting" but it is doable. And i have <STRONG>not</STRONG> yet had any of them turn round and say they wouldnt use a templar again cos we are crap.</P> <P>As already pointed out, if you know all the strenghts of your class then you can do well. Very well. Enough to always be in demand for groups etc <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>With Reverence, reactives, group heals, a wide variety of proc heals, a ward, etc etc we can certainly heal anyone that any other healer can.</P> <P>And when i invariably get aggro i can withstand that with my plate usually long enough to cast Complacency and the tank to get back to work. How many healers can do that ?   A fury who gets aggro is prob gonna be dead too quick just like any leather wearer.   Do not under estimate the ability to survive. A dead healer heals NO ONE.   Healers get a LOT of aggro these days from mobs ( i get the feeling that mobs have been specifically programmmed by soe to get healers these days!) and nothing beats the feeling of ending a hard fight with JUST YOU AND THE TANK STANDING cos the dps have all gone sleepies :smileywink:</P> <P>I love playing my templar still. If you dont then maybe the class simply isnt right for you. Play something you do enjoy and delete your templar.  </P>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <>Feign doesn't work if there are reactives on the tank. <><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Which is why I never precast reactives on a monk nor do I pull as a monk if I have any reactives, HoTs or wards on me.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Does that work out well for you when you and your groups when actually play your templar?  According to your previous posts, the only time you log in as your anonymous, unnamed templar is only for raiding...and only then when you have to.  Even then, I wasn't aware you'd play your templar in a group with a monk.  According to previous posts, you would never choose a templar for your only healer when you're a monk...so why would you allow yourself to be the only healer in a group with a monk as tank?  How are you even getting those group spots, because in previous posts, you'd made it clear that you're losing group spots to furies constantly.</P> <P>See what I'm getting at here?  You demand that everyone besides yourself provide facts, then only respond with stories, anecdotes, and more stories that include no names, no facts, and no numbers.  When others (like myself) post such stories, you respond that you "doubt" our version of events.  When we back up our stories with names and numbers and facts, you find fault in our tactics and try to point out where we did something wrong.  </P> <P>So which is it?  Are templars strong enough solo healers for monk fighters, or not?  Apparantly so, because apparantly you've done it.  In fact, we're apparantly so strong as healers, you don't even require precast heals before big pulls, now do you?  You had no problem calling Lorelily a "n00b" for her pull because she didn't do it how you would...but you overlooked one fact in your rush to judgement:  no one died.  Four ^^^ encounters on the pull, and not one person died.  We killed everything and not one person required a revive at any point.  </P> <P>...so tell me again.  How was that, in any way, something that can be considered "n00b" tactics?  I guess we're all just really lucky.  </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Timaarit]

Well, you have to know the weaknesses and strengths of the classes dont you? I dont precast on raids because it gets me killed. There are times when I need to get to my templar even on regular gameplay so that we can get guild groups. As I am the only monk in guild, I dont have to group with one. So I do precast my heals because the tanks cant feign. But when I am tanking with the monk, the healers dont precast just for the reason you told us. Whenever I feel like I overpulled, I just feign. By precasting, you are not using propably the only advantage of having a brawler as tank/puller. And if I recall correctly, you are the one who is always saying that we need to know the class. It is not enough to know just your own. <div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><BR>I dont precast on raids because it gets me killed. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I precast on every pull, every time, every raid.  On the few times when our MT doesn't snap the hate on the pull (taunt resisted?), then the OT jumps on it.  Even then, 95% of the time, the Mystic in the MT group grabs the hate over me (because the ward triggers before the reactive), and even then, she rarely dies because she's using her dehate the moment the targets pass the MT anyway...and then I am.  Better yet, even if she DOESN'T use her dehate, we're all ok because we've got precast heals up which are *GASP* <EM>healing us</EM> while the MT/OT regains the hate.  Maybe once every other raid we'll lose the Mystic on a pull...but that rarely occurs.  I can't recall the last time I died on a pull that didn't kill the MT anyway.</P> <P>As far as knowing classes, I'm pretty sure you'll hear a few differences in opinion on your assertion that "the only advantage" of having a brawler tank/puller is the ability to feign death.  </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P>

[Echgar]

<div></div><div></div>I have cleaned up this thread once before and this time I'm just going to close it.  I probably should have closed this thread based on the tone of the subject earlier, but it seemed like it had some constructive content.  The bickering is getting to be a bit much though.This forum seems to often have issues between posters that need moderator attention.  I suggest that those of you that feel it necessary to engage in personal attacks, insults, namecalling, and general baiting in order to express your disagreement with one another reread the <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=25" target="_blank">Forum Rules of Conduct</a> before we need to start using the Ban Stick.  If anyone has questions, feel free to PM me.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Echgar on <span class=date_text>11-19-2006</span> <span class=time_text>08:49 AM</span>