Raiding as an Inquisitor, how much are we behind on heals?

[jago quicksilver]

so, its been much discussed that inquisitors are behind on the healing curve, so i decided to start a thread to show some statistics about this. any zonewide parses from level 70 inquisitors will be much appreciated. you can simply add them to this thread, or PM them to me and i will compile them. Please only send me legit parses, no slacking. also, the zone you were in, what mobs you faced, and whether you had other healers in your group would be some other good information to add. thanks in advance to anyone who helps with my studies!

[JmSte]

<DIV>I never really cared much for zone wides, but I could probably dig some up - I usually just merge all the named, always seemed like a better representation for those not in the MT group.</DIV>

[jago quicksilver]

<div></div><span class="postbody">Freethinkers: (59:52) (Defiler-MT group)Nofiia HPH: 1105270 | 119.56 (Warden-MT)Phay HPH: 722147 | 54.18 (Mystic-OT)Konogur HPH: 674300 | 80.45 (Warden-OT)Negin HPH: 552698 | 5.19 (Templar-MT)Rarok HPH: 487918 | 16.11 (Fury-DPS)Sapphyre HPH: 406170 | 299.81 (Inquisitor-DPS)Ryklis HPH: 314781 | 36.75this is in a zone with only a few AEs, granted, but look at the differnce in between myself and Sapphyre who was also in a DPS group. Inquisitors just dont have the tools to heal up after AEs as fast, which hurts on the new fights with multiple AEsClockwork Menace Factory:(17:44)</span><span class="postbody">Nofiia HPH: 325661 | 82.16 Konogur HPH: 236953 | 68.70 Phay HPH: 226724 | 21.54 Sapphyre HPH: 177434 | 258.08 Negin HPH: 160302 | 10.25 Ryklis HPH: 159649 | 41.58 here is another, from Clockork Menace, and this time i was in the MT group. Notice that Both the other MT healers (Nofiia-Defiler, Phay-Warden) still heal a significant amount more than I do. wards proc first, of course, so i can see why he is the highest, but then reactives proc, so i should probably be doing better overall than phay. i was watching very closely to keep both group and single reactives up as much as possible.</span><p>Message Edited by jago quicksilver on <span class=date_text>12-05-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:54 PM</span>

[Chanah]

<DIV>Since when are inquisitors behind on other healers?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here is something funny, yesterday I went to Hos with my guild and for some stupid reason the MT died on a trash mob with 3 healers in his group, then a berserk in my group did rescue, but I was only healer in the group, then we killed it and I outhealed all healers by at least double what they healed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A couple mobs later we reached a named, same stuff happened again, MT died, and berserk in my group took over, I healed 82 k, second healer was 35 k or something and the rest below that...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Even if this [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] doesnt happen where I can finally show off how my heals are im still usually second or third healer, just 1 I can usually never beat, thats the shaman in MT group.</DIV>

[Spoof]

<div></div>I apologise for the negative response, but this is just wrong.Parsing healing total is less than half the story and dwelling on it will only reinforce the myth that some healers are better than others. Our guild went through a period of spamming dps parses in raidchat a long, long time ago and we stopped it because it alienates people who are undervalued - mostly because people put too much faith in parsing. Parses make no mention of curing, buffing, debuffing or specialisation. No accounting for group makeup, group role and spell quality. No accounting for wards taking priority over reactives.And there's no indication of skill - a good player who's timing saves lives rather than lazily spamming phat heals, or who looks beyond his own group to the forgotten people in group 4... their debuffs maybe keeping the tank alive more often than you think.Stick that in your pipe and parse it. ;o)<div></div>

[Chanah]

<DIV>Yeah I gotta agree with you, the stuff that we debuff makes us have to heal alot less cos the mob hits like a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]. Without us other healers have to heal alot more.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Still I promote parsing as it gives DPS/healers a goal to be "the best" in raid, we know certain classes have crazy dps, and bards are really crap dps, but we need their buffs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And we know a shaman in MT group will always outheal anyone in a raid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But before you parse and you make judgement about parses you just gotta know a few things:</DIV> <DIV>- You gotta know how all classes work.</DIV> <DIV>- You gotta know high dps/heals rely alot on procs and crits and high hits, so most is just a matter of luck.</DIV> <DIV>- Also something else: for example I have a monk, when there are to many healers in the raid I play my monk, got him pretty good equiped now, he's like half fabled, when im playing him I always go all out on dps, sometimes I parse 500 dps, the other time I parse over 2000 dps, thats all a matter of procs/crits and ofcourse groupsetup, I love to be with an inq cos of consecrated aura and act of conviction, they simply almost double my dps. Anyway, if I hit lower then 500 dps it is a fact that im slacking, and thats how you can look at other dpsers, if they are "below their minimun" they are simply slacking, getting highest dps of a raid is possible for basicly all dpsers, just luck is a major factor.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So basicly if you just gonna look at parser like he did most dps, so he is the best you are wrong.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I always run a parser myself but thats more for looking at my own capabilities. hitting highest healer or highest dps healer is just a fun fact.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Avirodar]

I can understand wanting to compare healing abilities of the healing class types, but I do not think zone / mob parses is the best way. They are far too open for environmental influences, down to the mob being killed, and varied group structures (including 1 or 2 healers per group). Situations pending, any healer in a raid can win. But this does not mean heals are balanced across the class types.How about comparing core factors for all the healing class types, the bang for buck kind of deal. How fast and how cheap? Basically find the equivalents and compare (if equivalents exist), and/or simply list all abilities and what they can do. I am pretty sure anyone who has put sincere effort into being a healer, will be able to see what is good and what is not. Examples of note worthy factors include:How many varied healing spells/effects does the class have?Total healing capacity of the spell?Cast time on the healing spell?Re-use timer on the healing spell?Power cost on the healing spell?Priority of the heal over others? [ie: order is   1)ward, 2)reactive, 3)direct/HOT's]That would prove a much more interesting study, rather than asking for environmentally skewed parses that I believe most guild leaders would not want being put on public forums?- Avi<div></div>

[Demoniac]

I disagree with this...if you run some raid like pick up raid lab, this will happen very offen like what you said. true raiders know what they doing during a raid... do the job first, then go dps. the dps and healing parser they are refence. it's how to judge people they are good or not. I am sure both of you never been the top raiding guild before. this is not a flame sir. I am just saying the fact. if you try to app them, they will judge you by parser. they are only looking for some people that do understand his class well. they are looking for some people that actually do the job. they will ask you some simple questions, what do you bring into the raid?? why I have to take you fill the raid spot??this is how I judge people.1. dps classI will check it zone wild parser.      1000+            1200+            1500+                  1800+not too bad       good dps       excellent       this guy is an animal 2. healing classi will check can he solo heal his raid group? yes or no? how's the parser going? HPS? dps? and how many times does he swings zone wide? by the last question what does it mean? it means some class that they are debuff class like us. let's just say the vampaire guy in mistmoore innersancatum. we got a 5 mins and 32 seconds fight. we calling the AEs. so people run in and out. I can solo heal the group. but the case is even a pally beat me in the healing parser. if you take a look at this, i suck. it just becauses our group they don't need that much heals. but i swing 1185 times in 5 mins. ( no any melee attacks, melee damage is 0 ) that's like casting 4 spells every single second how do you do this? find it out yourself <span>:smileywink:</span> <div></div>3. buffer and debuffer classfor everyone in the raid, we all must know the encounter pretty well how does it work? how can i beat the encounter? what's my job?, before we beat it. as a bard, ( i am not a bard, i don't really understand these classes at all. i am just saying my feeling ) I know this guy hits very hard. I have to make sure put all my offense debuff on him. this guy is a joke, we just need to full turn till he dies, then go dps. this guy will casting some awesome AEs at 5%. i need to cast my ae immunity at 5%. then i will need to cast my defense debuff on him make sure he dies in the next 30 seconds. i dunno 4. tech-support and strats steallong time ago,someone sent me an Enteral Chaos raiding MO fight. i read it. I can tell you this. who engaged the mob first? monk or mt? what's the MO's hit points? how long they fight? how much raid dps do I need to defeat this encounter( that will be mo's hp/( fight time +-30 seconds ) )? any adds? any specially abilities? what's the AE timer? what's the mob's class? any immunities? the general MT Damage taken per second? how many healers do i need to handle the mt heal? what's the actually everyone's doing?? for example, I can tell this assassin was on mo caz he does 200'000 damage on mo. I can tell this conj was on the adds, but his pet was on mo. such like these. people used to call this paper work...in all, when people watching a show. different people feel different. this is how the parser works. some people misunderstand the parser it doesn't really mean it's pointless to bring it up. again, I am sorry sir. I wasn't trying to flame you. I am trying to speak what i feel.

[Avirodar]

Jina wrote "I am sure both of you never been the top raiding guild before. this is not a flame sir. I am just saying the fact."I sincerely hope that comment was not directed toward me?- Avirodar<div></div>

[Demoniac]

no sir... you just post too fast ahead of me... I blame the dwarf.<div></div>

[Chanah]

<DIV>thats prolly the most dumbest reply i have heard for a long time, grats on that, obviously you have no clue to who you are replying, before you should make such replies you should inspect my guild first, or just [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] and stay noob forever. compared to what i have done in raiding I can assure I can call you a kid. I was playing eq2 when you were still wearing dipers, no go back to your mom before your dad caches you using his credit card again.</DIV>

[ericshaitan]

<blockquote><hr>Trinral wrote:I can understand wanting to compare healing abilities of the healing class types, but I do not think zone / mob parses is the best way. They are far too open for environmental influences, down to the mob being killed, and varied group structures (including 1 or 2 healers per group). Situations pending, any healer in a raid can win.- Avi<div></div><hr></blockquote>Best posting I have seen in a long time.  I have been saything this about the heal parse forever.  The heal parse Means Jack and a Half.  Timing on heals, the quickness of casting and the amount of a heal are what dictate a good healing class or not.  Anytime i want to win, or get second.... stupid shammies, a heal parse I can, its not that hard.  Heal Parse=Means Nothing.<div></div>

[Ssinu]

<div></div>I think the post topic is valid (long overdue in fact) - but with a caveat.There should also be posts about our debuffs their effects, our buffs their effects, our dps, and our utility and it's effects. Inquisitors have a tendency to not post fact (like parses and it doesn't have to be a heal parse) and make up stories about how they debuffed the raid better than any class, while healing better than a templar and doing 2000 DPS. (Yes, this is an exaggeration, but I have seen some outlandish things.) I love parses and numbers and yea heal parses often just show how awake a healer is, the group make up and how much he/she is debuffing or dps'ing. There are cases though that given the same circumstances healer A heals less than healer B. You can always explain it as to why (regen vs reactive vs ward) as well.<b>But here is the question - what is the worst off priest class in the game right now on raids? Worst off meaning "bang for the buck" as someone said above - cast for cast, not putting out the heals, the  debuffs, the buffs and/or DPS? If you had a pool of 12 active priests (2 of each) who would be taken for your 7 healer slots on an EoF raid or if you prefer 12<i> equally good</i> priest recruits and you were building a 7 man dream team -- what classes would it look like? <i>(Seven slots so you have to pick one extra priest class)</i>Or do people think everything is fine and no class needs a boost?</b><div></div><p>Message Edited by Ssinurn on <span class=date_text>12-06-2006</span> <span class=time_text>10:25 AM</span>

[Demoniac]

<blockquote><hr>Ghyro wrote:<div>thats prolly the most dumbest reply i have heard for a long time, grats on that, obviously you have no clue to who you are replying, before you should make such replies you should inspect my guild first, or just [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] and stay noob forever. compared to what i have done in raiding I can assure I can call you a kid. I was playing eq2 when you were still wearing dipers, no go back to your mom before your dad caches you using his credit card again.</div><hr></blockquote>sorry sir..no more conversation. <div></div>

[jago quicksilver]

<div><blockquote><hr>Trinral wrote:I can understand wanting to compare healing abilities of the healing class types, but I do not think zone / mob parses is the best way. They are far too open for environmental influences, down to the mob being killed, and varied group structures (including 1 or 2 healers per group). Situations pending, any healer in a raid can win. But this does not mean heals are balanced across the class types.How about comparing core factors for all the healing class types, the bang for buck kind of deal. How fast and how cheap? Basically find the equivalents and compare (if equivalents exist), and/or simply list all abilities and what they can do. I am pretty sure anyone who has put sincere effort into being a healer, will be able to see what is good and what is not. Examples of note worthy factors include:<font color="#ff3300"><b><font size="3">How many varied healing spells/effects does the class have?Total healing capacity of the spell?Cast time on the healing spell?Re-use timer on the healing spell?Power cost on the healing spell?Priority of the heal over others? [ie: order is   1)ward, 2)reactive, 3)direct/HOT's]</font></b></font>That would prove a much more interesting study, rather than asking for environmentally skewed parses that I believe most guild leaders would not want being put on public forums?- Avi<div></div><hr></blockquote>i have already started to break this down, i just think that some parses would be good info to back this up.</div>

[Catseyes]

disclaimer :Sorry, i m not a HCG raider , but i ve played this class wince day one, and played it in all the situations raid/solo/group/MT/solo healer... i like the things we can bring in battles, sure,... But ,whatever you put in balance :- our debuffing hability ? the only one i find good is the melee skill debuff.  The mitig ? too low, the sta/int ? low ,that said, shamans are debuffing way more than us, while healing more to the priority of wards. - our dps buffs ?  well, dunno, but i wont be take in a raid,to just toggle fanaticisim and nuke ... think they will take another priest.Whatever we can do aside heal, is not our primary role in the game.  The role that will make us called in battle instead another class. S'sinnum was right, at end of all you can find good in our class, if we have to compete for a healer slot in raid , we will rarely win on even skilled players. When accuracy is called , they will look who throw the more HP/H to make the raid win . A real balance between class, would give to each class a specific thing better than other.  If whatever we do, someone is doing better than us, why choosing us then ? cept for friendship or more challenge... Saying , yes we have a HPH lower than anyone but we can do tricks aside, is hiding our head in the floor in my opinion. We need something, as clerics, we do better than the others. As the other priests have already. Ymrir, 70 inquisitor befallen<div></div>

[Avirodar]

<DIV>Catseyes wrote "<EM>We need something, as clerics, we do better than the others. As the other priests have already</EM>. "</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I agree with most of your post, except for that comment.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am not out to try to push SoE into making us a class where people pounce on us Inquisitors the moment we go LFG, because we are notably the best at something. I simply want to be in the same healer-quality ballpark as the rest, and not be left a half broken malfunctioning class that has little to nothing going for it. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To be a worth while class, we simply need competitive heals and abilities.  I am not seeking changes that make us the best healer in the game, and realistically, I hope none of you are. Inquisitors already have enough unique skills and abilities in their own right, they just need some tweaking (and fixing / bug removal) to make us more competitive.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All I want, is for it to be fair, and balanced.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- Avirodar.</DIV> <DIV>- 70 Inquisitor, Nektulos Server.</DIV> <DIV>- Dissolution.</DIV>

[yibiumien]

<P>I fail to see what the issue is.  I am the only inq, and yes I'm in the dps group.  When needed I out heal every other class on the raid except the shamman in MT group, unless he dies <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. (Argy) Anyway, our debuffs make a huge difference, so do our buffs.   I solo heal the off tank during any adds in encounters, I manage to keep all my dps alive though a few of them like to disregard the joust.  In a pinch I've rescued the raid.  I don't see our class as broken, I do wish we had another mitigation buff in our arsinal.  Only because it would help alot in single and duel group, that aa buff I tried out for a bit didn't do so well because of our inherintly low avoidance.</P> <P>When I don't need to heal that much the dps in my group is outstanding. </P> <P>Every good raid team should have at least one Inq.  They should also have at least one templar. After that it's up in the air.  Of course they want a Warden, a Defiler, and maybe a mystic.  I just don't think we are that far behind the curve. </P>

[Ssinu]

<div><blockquote><hr>Trinral wrote:<div>Catseyes wrote "<em>We need something, as clerics, we do better than the others. As the other priests have already</em>. "</div> <div> </div> <div>I agree with most of your post, except for that comment.</div> <div> </div> <div>I am not out to try to push SoE into making us a class where people pounce on us Inquisitors the moment we go LFG, because we are notably the best at something. I simply want to be in the same healer-quality ballpark as the rest, and not be left a half broken malfunctioning class that has little to nothing going for it. </div> <div> </div> <div><b>To be a worth while class, we simply need competitive heals and abilities.  I am not seeking changes that make us the best healer in the game, and realistically, I hope none of you are. Inquisitors already have enough unique skills and abilities in their own right, they just need some tweaking (and fixing / bug removal) to make us more competitive.</b></div> <div> </div> <div>All I want, is for it to be fair, and balanced.</div> <div> </div> <div>- Avirodar.</div> <div>- 70 Inquisitor, Nektulos Server.</div> <div>- Dissolution.</div><hr></blockquote>This post sums my feelings nicely. No I don't want to be the best, just want some TLC or a balancing pass similar to what other games to with ailing classes. Fix the bugs, rethink large penalties, think of what you would like to see/do if you played this class.  If someone had to sit down and think about our class as their project, I probably would be happy with the result. Some classes in the game just feel like more thought was put into their design - or maybe it just ended up that way by coincidence.You  know, we really need a suggestion list. This thread is gonna get derailed if so I'll start a new post, but it would be nice if we as a community could get a sticky of things we would like to see.</div>

[Goozman]

<DIV>Am I in bizarro world here? Inquisitors are among the 2 best direct healers not the worst, and have convert on top of that. I would have assumed Inquisitors would know this, but have you checked the cast, recast, and heal quantities of your heals vs other priests? It's amazing</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Inquisitors also have the 3rd best debuffs (of the priests), both increasing raid dps and lowering mob dps. They also have potentialy limitless power to chain cast their great heals, the dps of a lower "tier 2" or upper "tier 3" dps class, and respectable buffs, some of which people fight over.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I must have been smoking weed in my sleep or something because this thread is leaving me dumbfounded.</DIV>

[Israphil]

<div><blockquote><hr>Goozman wrote:<div>Am I in bizarro world here? Inquisitors are among the 2 best direct healers not the worst, and have convert on top of that. I would have assumed Inquisitors would know this, but have you checked the cast, recast, and heal quantities of your heals vs other priests? It's amazing</div> <div> </div> <div>Inquisitors also have the 3rd best debuffs (of the priests), both increasing raid dps and lowering mob dps. They also have potentialy limitless power to chain cast their great heals, the dps of a lower "tier 2" or upper "tier 3" dps class, and respectable buffs, some of which people fight over.</div> <div> </div> <div>I must have been smoking weed in my sleep or something because this thread is leaving me dumbfounded.</div><hr></blockquote>/agree, i've chosen to not speak up because I don't want to turn this into a flamewar...this thread is ridiculous. there is absolutely nothing wrong with our healing ability, whatsoever.</div>

[Avirodar]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Goozman wrote:<BR> <DIV>Am I in bizarro world here? Inquisitors are among the 2 best direct healers not the worst, and have convert on top of that. I would have assumed Inquisitors would know this, but have you checked the cast, recast, and heal quantities of your heals vs other priests? It's amazing</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Inquisitors also have the 3rd best debuffs (of the priests), both increasing raid dps and lowering mob dps. They also have potentialy limitless power to chain cast their great heals, the dps of a lower "tier 2" or upper "tier 3" dps class, and respectable buffs, some of which people fight over.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I must have been smoking weed in my sleep or something because this thread is leaving me dumbfounded.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Are you in a bizarro world? There is -no way- Inquisitors are better direct healers than Wardens and Furies, absolutely positively no chance. Templars have bigger heals, 3 reactives (not counting emergency) and more heals/utility heals, so they are better direct healers than Inquisitors. Mystics and Defilers have amazing debuffs and wards that smoke direct healing capacities.  So umm, would you be so kind as to clarify exactly who you think you can heal better than? Did I miss any class types?</P> <P>The debuffs that both Shamans have, completely smoke Inquisitor debuffs. and in the grand scheme of things, our debuffs compared to the class types such as troubadours, brigands (and many other dps/utility class) are borderline insignificant. Forced obedience is kind of useful, but no gods gift. Debase and Convict are dwarfed by the debuffs other class types have.</P> <P>Any healer that is the sole healer of a group constantly eating AoE/Reprisal damage should top the heal parse, or be awful close to. This does not mean you are a good healer, or can heal as well as other healers. It simply means you were in a position you were required to cover more.</P> <P>Our cast/recast/heal ratio is obliterated by druids. For the spells we HAVE, we compare to templars, but the fact remains they have more heals/utility heals, so they stand above us.  If we are running convert in an attempt to compare to templar heal output, we will OOP a long time before them. Leaving convert up, needlessly wastes a lot of power over the period of a fight.</P> <P>Chilling Inquest is not the endless mana feed some try to claim. I can go into a fights with Chilling Inquest, Mutagenic BP, Princes Hammer, DT Stein plus the Innoruks cloak, and still need to leave convert down to conserve power. Enough said. Very few Inquisitors in the world have the mana regen/proc'ing capacity I do. If I run low on, or out of power, the case is made.</P> <P>- Avirodar, 70 Inquisitor, Nektulos Server.</P>

[Catseyes]

trinral , u got me wrong.  I didnt asked to be BEST HEALER.  But to have a function, something  for cleric i do better than others , as the OTHERS have already. For balance, each class must have a defining + in their bags. I dont want to simply heal more than a templar, no  sir.   But  i dont want to see all my skills better done by another priest. we are not first in heals , ( and  parsing heals in long raids or multiple groups show that against the other priests) . we are not first in debuffs , it's the job of shammans , tho , i m curious of the real effect on epics from FO ,convict and debase. I m always using them in fight, and as far i v seen, i dont see a visible change to the hits i take or the damage output of mobs.  On epics then? if we need 4+ inqui in a raid to have a signifiant effect of our debuffs,that's bad . we are not first in buffs : we are offensive so it's intented... DPS ? are we a dps class that our dmg output in raid is a matter of choice to pick up us ? it's nice toy for solo, but even in group i let that to the dps classes i play with. so , what we have as inquisitor as "+" job ? everytime someone come and say "u are silly, our heals are fine, i m good healer in my group, i m good soloer ...." etc etc i dont say we re broken . I just say, we are not balanced with the other priests.  We are FORCED to be better soloers , but we havent any choice to increase our healing capacity  if we wish too, and that's surprising for a supposed CLERIC class ( i choose cleric, not pally ,why should i go try to make their jobs,without their toys ? )<div></div>

[Tarta]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Trinral wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Goozman wrote:<BR> <DIV>Am I in bizarro world here? Inquisitors are among the 2 best direct healers not the worst, and have convert on top of that. I would have assumed Inquisitors would know this, but have you checked the cast, recast, and heal quantities of your heals vs other priests? It's amazing</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Inquisitors also have the 3rd best debuffs (of the priests), both increasing raid dps and lowering mob dps. They also have potentialy limitless power to chain cast their great heals, the dps of a lower "tier 2" or upper "tier 3" dps class, and respectable buffs, some of which people fight over.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I must have been smoking weed in my sleep or something because this thread is leaving me dumbfounded.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Are you in a bizarro world? There is -no way- Inquisitors are better direct healers than Wardens and Furies, absolutely positively no chance. Templars have bigger heals, 3 reactives (not counting emergency) and more heals/utility heals, so they are better direct healers than Inquisitors. Mystics and Defilers have amazing debuffs and wards that smoke direct healing capacities.  So umm, would you be so kind as to clarify exactly who you think you can heal better than? Did I miss any class types?</P> <P>The debuffs that both Shamans have, completely smoke Inquisitor debuffs. and in the grand scheme of things, our debuffs compared to the class types such as troubadours, brigands (and many other dps/utility class) are borderline insignificant. Forced obedience is kind of useful, but no gods gift. Debase and Convict are dwarfed by the debuffs other class types have.</P> <P>Any healer that is the sole healer of a group constantly eating AoE/Reprisal damage should top the heal parse, or be awful close to. This does not mean you are a good healer, or can heal as well as other healers. It simply means you were in a position you were required to cover more.</P> <P>Our cast/recast/heal ratio is obliterated by druids. For the spells we HAVE, we compare to templars, but the fact remains they have more heals/utility heals, so they stand above us.  If we are running convert in an attempt to compare to templar heal output, we will OOP a long time before them. Leaving convert up, needlessly wastes a lot of power over the period of a fight.</P> <P>Chilling Inquest is not the endless mana feed some try to claim. I can go into a fights with Chilling Inquest, Mutagenic BP, Princes Hammer, DT Stein plus the Innoruks cloak, and still need to leave convert down to conserve power. Enough said. Very few Inquisitors in the world have the mana regen/proc'ing capacity I do. If I run low on, or out of power, the case is made.</P> <P>- Avirodar, 70 Inquisitor, Nektulos Server.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I have to second this. As things are now, I feel that I need another healer in the melee group with me to alleviate the load. If the scouts aren't dying outright from crushing aoes, then they're taking just enough damage to drain my power before the mob is down to 25% health. I'm using shards / manastone as much as possible. I am wearing mostly fabled gear from KoS (and adornments for healing) with decent FT, chilling inquest and cloak of hate (which I can't proc because I'd have to waste power on nukes.) If we don't have a chanter or bard, we're even worse off.</P> <P>Group reactives don't seem to help enough and only seem to drain my power more - especially if I have convert up (totally wasted power drain here, because I try to put the reactive on while scouts are at 100% before damage has been taken.)</P> <P>Also Avirodar, please note: I don't think Goozman is speaking as an inquisitor here. I'm pretty sure he plays a fury.</P>

[BlackFlowe]

<P>I would like to see intelligence casters receive a similar benefit to their DPS from Consecrated Aura as melee DPS receive.  Be this by adding extra spell damage or INT to the buff, etc - while I doubt our ability to heal will be increased, our desirability or utility could use some assistance.</P>

[Goozman]

<DIV>Just going to throw these out there for perspective on direct healing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>((min + max)/2)/(cast + recast + recovery) to show heals per second with adept 3 spells</DIV> <DIV><BR>Templar: Grand Amelioration: 100hps</DIV> <DIV>Inquisitor: Devoted Ministration*: 144hps</DIV> <DIV>Mystic: Rejuvenating Rite: 98hps</DIV> <DIV>Defiler: Putrid Balm: 100hps</DIV> <DIV>Warden: Sylvan Streams: 125hps</DIV> <DIV>Fury: Wild Salve: 90hps</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templar: Grand Restoration: 104hps</DIV> <DIV>Inquisitor: Fanatical Healing*: 131hps</DIV> <DIV>Mystic: Learned Healing: 97hps</DIV> <DIV>Defiler: Sacrificial Deliverance: 104hps</DIV> <DIV>Warden: Verdant Bliss: 139hps</DIV> <DIV>Fury: Nature's Elixir: 99hps</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fury: Back Into the Fray: 87hps</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>*I included convert in the Inquisitor calculations (without convert they are 113 and 114); and since I included convert, I also included back into the fray.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Over an infinite amount of time, Inquisitors heal 71 more hit points per second than templars and defilers through direct heals. They heal 80 hit points per second more than Mystics... that equates to much better direct healing. They heal 11 hit points per second more than Wardens (the class people assume to have the highest hps), and their heals are instant which is a huge advantage over hot's. Furies are the only class that can beat an Inquisitor in hps over an infinite period of time, but need to cast 3 spells vs 2. If a Fury is franticly healing, they are the only class that can keep up with Inquisitors in raw healing power, therefor I place Inquisitors in the top 2 direct healers.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Goozman on <span class=date_text>12-10-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:05 AM</span>

[Chanah]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Goozman wrote:<BR> <DIV>Am I in bizarro world here? Inquisitors are among the 2 best direct healers not the worst, and have convert on top of that. I would have assumed Inquisitors would know this, but have you checked the cast, recast, and heal quantities of your heals vs other priests? It's amazing</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Inquisitors also have the 3rd best debuffs (of the priests), both increasing raid dps and lowering mob dps. They also have potentialy limitless power to chain cast their great heals, the dps of a lower "tier 2" or upper "tier 3" dps class, and respectable buffs, some of which people fight over.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I must have been smoking weed in my sleep or something because this thread is leaving me dumbfounded.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Somone with brains!</P> <P>btw, have you noticed shaman's nerfs on their debuffs? It might be very possible that we are the best debuffing class atm, I have not checked exactly what they debuff atm, but we getting close if we didnt pass em yet, also we are the only healer class that debuff the 2 only stats that decide mobs dps, which is ofcourse INT and STR.</P>

[Tarta]

<P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Goozman wrote:<BR> <DIV>Just going to throw these out there for perspective on direct healing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>((min + max)/2)/(cast + recast + recovery) to show heals per second with adept 3 spells</DIV> <DIV><BR>Templar: Grand Amelioration: 100hps</DIV> <DIV>Inquisitor: Devoted Ministration*: 144hps</DIV> <DIV>Mystic: Rejuvenating Rite: 98hps</DIV> <DIV>Defiler: Putrid Balm: 100hps</DIV> <DIV>Warden: Sylvan Streams: 125hps</DIV> <DIV>Fury: Wild Salve: 90hps</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Templar: Grand Restoration: 104hps</DIV> <DIV>Inquisitor: Fanatical Healing*: 131hps</DIV> <DIV>Mystic: Learned Healing: 97hps</DIV> <DIV>Defiler: Sacrificial Deliverance: 104hps</DIV> <DIV>Warden: Verdant Bliss: 139hps</DIV> <DIV>Fury: Nature's Elixir: 99hps</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fury: Back Into the Fray: 87hps</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>*I included convert in the Inquisitor calculations (without convert they are 113 and 114); and since I included convert, I also included back into the fray.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Over an infinite amount of time, Inquisitors heal 71 more hit points per second than templars and defilers through direct heals. They heal 80 hit points per second more than Mystics... that equates to much better direct healing. They heal 11 hit points per second more than Wardens (the class people assume to have the highest hps), and their heals are instant which is a huge advantage over hot's. Furies are the only class that can beat an Inquisitor in hps over an infinite period of time, but need to cast 3 spells vs 2. If a Fury is franticly healing, they are the only class that can keep up with Inquisitors in raw healing power, therefor I place Inquisitors in the top 2 direct healers.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Goozman on <SPAN class=date_text>12-10-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:05 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Cool data. Thanks. In fairness, without convert our direct heals are considerably weaker than you show. The reason we actually have to be concerned with this is because with raiding the way it is now (and inquest being broken), I don't see how we can leave convert on all the time anymore. There's just too much power required to use group-wide casts. Convert is also the lowest efficiency per point healed in the game (55 power == 199 hp). Consider...</P> <P>group cure: 376 base + 6*55 = 705 power</P> <P>group reactive: 352 base + 6*55 = 682 power</P> <P>fanaticism: 23 + 6*55 = 353 power</P> <P>I don't know what your power pool is, I'm sure it's a good sight higher than mine, but some of these group-wide casts cost me more than 10% of my power with convert on. Yeah, convert is great for larger heals when you have power to spare, but it seems those times are behind us now.</P> <P>Convert is also a 2 sec cast, so you can't just turn it on when you want to do a direct heal and turn it off afterwards. Were this the case, I'm sure I would have just nodded at your post showing the relative power of direct heals with ours including convert.</P> <P>So... now the data for our direct heals without convert:</P> <P>Devoted Ministration (ad3): 112hps</P> <P>Fanatical Healing (ad3): 118hps</P>

[menelaus109]

<div><blockquote><hr>Goozman wrote:<div></div> <div>Just going to throw these out there for perspective on direct healing.</div> <div> </div> <div>((min + max)/2)/(cast + recast + recovery) to show heals per second with adept 3 spells</div> <div>Templar: Grand Amelioration: 100hps</div> <div>Inquisitor: Devoted Ministration*: 144hps</div> <div>Mystic: Rejuvenating Rite: 98hps</div> <div>Defiler: Putrid Balm: 100hps</div> <div>Warden: Sylvan Streams: 125hps</div> <div>Fury: Wild Salve: 90hps</div> <div> </div> <div>Templar: Grand Restoration: 104hps</div> <div>Inquisitor: Fanatical Healing*: 131hps</div> <div>Mystic: Learned Healing: 97hps</div> <div>Defiler: Sacrificial Deliverance: 104hps</div> <div>Warden: Verdant Bliss: 139hps</div> <div>Fury: Nature's Elixir: 99hps</div> <div> </div> <div>Fury: Back Into the Fray: 87hps</div> <div> </div> <div>*I included convert in the Inquisitor calculations (without convert they are 113 and 114); and since I included convert, I also included back into the fray.</div> <div> </div> <div>Over an infinite amount of time, Inquisitors heal 71 more hit points per second than templars and defilers through direct heals. They heal 80 hit points per second more than Mystics... that equates to much better direct healing. They heal 11 hit points per second more than Wardens (the class people assume to have the highest hps), and their heals are instant which is a huge advantage over hot's. Furies are the only class that can beat an Inquisitor in hps over an infinite period of time, but need to cast 3 spells vs 2. If a Fury is franticly healing, they are the only class that can keep up with Inquisitors in raw healing power, therefor I place Inquisitors in the top 2 direct healers.</div><p>Message Edited by Goozman on <span class="date_text">12-10-2006</span> <span class="time_text">01:05 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Some useful information here, however its misleading in the extreme to point to the one particular aspect of healing in which we excel and claim that as proof of our healing superiorityTake templars for example, its impossible to calculate the HPS of thier involuntary heal lines without checking parses, also what about things like the defiler pet that is AOE immune and has a chance to proc a group ward, how would you calculate the HPS of that without parses?I dont really raid anymore but have been in hardcore guilds before and remember one occasion where i was outhealed by a necromancer and a defilers pet when fighting MO, non of my group members died yet my ability to bring them quickly back to full health was definitely less than other healersI like the idea behind this thread and hopefully people will contribute parses so a mature and flame free discussion can be had</div>

[Avirodar]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><hr size="2" width="100%">Menelaus wrote:Some useful information here, however its misleading in the extreme to point to the one particular aspect of healing in which we excel and claim that as proof of our healing superiority<hr size="2" width="100%">So very true Menelaus. Healing has a <b>LOT</b> more to consider than simply a direct heal spell.Here are some Fury vs Inq heal figures to sink your teeth into....<i><font color="#ffff33">Fury</font></i><font face="Courier New">Wild Salve             - Drt Hl, 1.0s, 117p,   667 hp,  5.7 ratio,  5s recastNature's Elixir        - Drt Hl, 1.5s, 203p,  1184 hp,  5.8 ratio, 8.5 recastBack into the fray(A)  - Drt Hl, 1.5s, 148p,   793 hp,  5.4 ratio,  6s recastBack into the fray(B)  - Drt Hl, 1.5s, 148p,  1587 hp, 10.7 ratio,  6s recastGreater Bloodflow     - Drt HoT, 2.0s, 190p,  2892 hp, 15.2 ratio,  6s recastOwl's Reparation      - Grp HoT, 3.0s, 356p, 17946 hp, 50.4 ratio, 12s recastShriek of the Untamed  - Grp Hl, 1.5s, 284p,  5862 hp, 20.6 ratio, 7.5 recastHibernation            - Grp Hl, 1.0s, 223p,  8520 hp, 38.2 ratio, 10s recast<i><font color="#ffff66">Inquisitor</font></i>Devoted Ministration   - Drt Hl, 2.0s, 146p,   834 hp,  5.7 ratio,  4s recastFanatical Healing      - Drt Hl, 3.0s, 254p,  1480 hp,  5.8 ratio,  8s recastReproachful Alleviation- Grp Hl, 3.0s, 356p,  7320 hp, 20.6 rario,  6s recastSuffering Penance      - Drt RH, 2.0s, 190p,  2407 hp, 12.6 ratio,  6s recastMalevolent Diatribe    - Grp RH, 5.0s, 356p,  4486 hp, 12.6 ratio, 15s recastConvert                - Add_on,  -  ,  30p,   232 hp,  7.7 ratio, Affects initial cast only.<font face="Arial"><i>Quick comment for anyone who is not sure... Drt = direct, Hl = heal, Grp = group, HoT = Heal over Time, RH = Reactive Heal.</i>All figures are based on Master1 versions of the spells, with no heal adornments / cast enhancements taken into consideration.What stands out most notably, is the prolific efficiency of the Fury HoT versus our comparative Grp RH ability. 18000 vs 4500. This gap is amplified by effects such as heal crits (up to +30%) and triggers of the claymore reward (+20%). The heal-power ratio also stands in favor of the fury, 50.4 vs 12.6.Inquisitors primary group heal spell does heal for approx 1500 more than a furies  primary group heal, 7320 vs 5860. Both possess the same heal-power ratio. A fury group heal cast time is half that of Inquisitors. Cast + Recast time are comparable. Heal-power ratios on primary group heals are identical.  BUT, furies get hibernation. That spell would rock for when you know AoE damage is incoming (and so many of the raid AoEs are timed...).  And the heal-power ratio on hibernation is amazing, almost double the efficiency of the Inq/Fury primary group heals.Direct healing comparisons, its fair to say it's reasonably close. The heal-power ratios are also on par.Without counting cool down timers (usually 0.5 seconds), in 9.5 seconds a druid can cast a group HoT, 3 direct heals, and 2 group heals, a total capacity of 35,379 hp.Without counting cool down timers (usually 0.5 seconds), in 13 seconds an Inq can cast a group RH, 2 direct heals, and a group heal, a total capacity of 14,120 hp.Just to make the point, again... Fury: 9.5 seconds for a 35,000 total.   Inquisitor: 13 seconds for a 14,000 hp total.  Wow...</font></font>Goozman's post seems accurate for the information it -does- have. However, it fails to declare a lot about what truely is healing. Saying someone is a "good direct healer" in the limited manner Goozman does, unfortunately means little if only a third of heal spells are evaluated. Goozman's comments could be deceptive and misleading when it comes to the overall topic of how good Inquisitors are at healing.I can quite easily replicate this post to cater to any other healer class in the game, covering their healing aspects, convertion ratios etc etc. I might do one tomorrow for Warden Vs Inquisitor... That one would be ugly. But ultimately, and to the point...The numbers I have posted above, do the talking. Inquisitors are not the best at healing. We're a long way from it.- Avirodar- 70 Inquisitor, Dissolution, Nektulos.<p>Message Edited by Trinral on <span class=date_text>12-10-2006</span> <span class=time_text>10:45 AM</span>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Ghyro wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Goozman wrote: <div>Am I in bizarro world here? Inquisitors are among the 2 best direct healers not the worst, and have convert on top of that. I would have assumed Inquisitors would know this, but have you checked the cast, recast, and heal quantities of your heals vs other priests? It's amazing</div> <div> </div> <div>Inquisitors also have the 3rd best debuffs (of the priests), both increasing raid dps and lowering mob dps. They also have potentialy limitless power to chain cast their great heals, the dps of a lower "tier 2" or upper "tier 3" dps class, and respectable buffs, some of which people fight over.</div> <div> </div> <div>I must have been smoking weed in my sleep or something because this thread is leaving me dumbfounded.</div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Somone with brains!</p> <p>btw,<b> have you noticed shaman's nerfs on their debuffs</b>? It might be very possible that we are the best debuffing class atm, I have not checked exactly what they debuff atm, but we getting close if we didnt pass em yet, also we are the only healer class that debuff the 2 only stats that decide mobs dps, which is ofcourse INT and STR.</p><hr></blockquote>What are you talking about exactly?  As far as I know only one spell was nerfed - which was a debuff that did 32% to all attributes now does a static number of 48.For information purposes, since I have a Defiler =DThis is what a Defiler can do to a single target without AAs (+ signs signify that the additional amounts come more than one spell):STR - 76 + 48 =124AGI - 76 + 48 = 124STA - 48WIS - 76 + 48 + 126 = 250 INT - 48Attack Speed - 27 + 13.2 + 37 = 77.2DPS - 19.2 + 16.5 + 26 = 61.7Disease Resistance - 960 + 944 = 1904Poison Resistance - 960 + 944 = 1904Misc - Debuff which grants mob 8% chance of proccing a ward of 698 on the mob's target</div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>12-10-2006</span> <span class=time_text>10:52 AM</span>

[jago quicksilver]

<div></div>well, first off, DPS mod and Haste mod are much more efficient Debuffs than STR. As Avirodar stated above, Direct healing is only one part of healing, that we are good at only if we are running convert, which drains our power considerably, so much that we cant keep up with inquest in its broken state. Also, an infinite amount of time is not even in the ball park of being a decent frame of reference, since nobody can heal forever, and inquisitors are the worst off since we cannot buff our power/wis in any way, and as i stated and everyone knows, Inquest is broken. i think that heal to power ratio is one of the things that make or break a healing class, and ours isnt comparable to that of a fury's or warden's. Avirodar made a strong point that we are far behind on the raw healing ability and the heal/power ratio, doth disgustingly large gaps if you ask me. One more thing that puts us behind on the healing curve is the fact that EVERY other healing class has access to at least one more heal/ward/HoT than us. <p>Message Edited by jago quicksilver on <span class=date_text>12-10-2006</span> <span class=time_text>10:45 AM</span>

[Israphil]

<div><blockquote><hr>Trinral wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><hr size="2" width="100%">Menelaus wrote:Some useful information here, however its misleading in the extreme to point to the one particular aspect of healing in which we excel and claim that as proof of our healing superiority<hr size="2" width="100%">So very true Menelaus. Healing has a <b>LOT</b> more to consider than simply a direct heal spell.Here are some Fury vs Inq heal figures to sink your teeth into....<i><font color="#ffff33">Fury</font></i><font face="Courier New">Wild Salve             - Drt Hl, 1.0s, 117p,   667 hp,  5.7 ratio,  5s recastNature's Elixir        - Drt Hl, 1.5s, 203p,  1184 hp,  5.8 ratio, 8.5 recastBack into the fray(A)  - Drt Hl, 1.5s, 148p,   793 hp,  5.4 ratio,  6s recastBack into the fray(B)  - Drt Hl, 1.5s, 148p,  1587 hp, 10.7 ratio,  6s recastGreater Bloodflow     - Drt HoT, 2.0s, 190p,  2892 hp, 15.2 ratio,  6s recastOwl's Reparation      - Grp HoT, 3.0s, 356p, 17946 hp, 50.4 ratio, 12s recastShriek of the Untamed  - Grp Hl, 1.5s, 284p,  5862 hp, 20.6 ratio, 7.5 recastHibernation            - Grp Hl, 1.0s, 223p,  8520 hp, 38.2 ratio, 10s recast<i><font color="#ffff66">Inquisitor</font></i>Devoted Ministration   - Drt Hl, 2.0s, 146p,   834 hp,  5.7 ratio,  4s recastFanatical Healing      - Drt Hl, 3.0s, 254p,  1480 hp,  5.8 ratio,  8s recastReproachful Alleviation- Grp Hl, 3.0s, 356p,  7320 hp, 20.6 rario,  6s recastSuffering Penance      - Drt RH, 2.0s, 190p,  2407 hp, 12.6 ratio,  6s recastMalevolent Diatribe    - Grp RH, 5.0s, 356p,  4486 hp, 12.6 ratio, 15s recastConvert                - Add_on,  -  ,  30p,   232 hp,  7.7 ratio, Affects initial cast only.<font face="Arial"><i>Quick comment for anyone who is not sure... Drt = direct, Hl = heal, Grp = group, HoT = Heal over Time, RH = Reactive Heal.</i>All figures are based on Master1 versions of the spells, with no heal adornments / cast enhancements taken into consideration.What stands out most notably, is the prolific efficiency of the Fury HoT versus our comparative Grp RH ability. 18000 vs 4500. This gap is amplified by effects such as heal crits (up to +30%) and triggers of the claymore reward (+20%). The heal-power ratio also stands in favor of the fury, 50.4 vs 12.6.Inquisitors primary group heal spell does heal for approx 1500 more than a furies  primary group heal, 7320 vs 5860. Both possess the same heal-power ratio. A fury group heal cast time is half that of Inquisitors. Cast + Recast time are comparable. Heal-power ratios on primary group heals are identical.  BUT, furies get hibernation. That spell would rock for when you know AoE damage is incoming (and so many of the raid AoEs are timed...).  And the heal-power ratio on hibernation is amazing, almost double the efficiency of the Inq/Fury primary group heals.Direct healing comparisons, its fair to say it's reasonably close. The heal-power ratios are also on par.Without counting cool down timers (usually 0.5 seconds), in 9.5 seconds a druid can cast a group HoT, 3 direct heals, and 2 group heals, a total capacity of 35,379 hp.Without counting cool down timers (usually 0.5 seconds), in 13 seconds an Inq can cast a group RH, 2 direct heals, and a group heal, a total capacity of 14,120 hp.Just to make the point, again... Fury: 9.5 seconds for a 35,000 total.   Inquisitor: 13 seconds for a 14,000 hp total.  Wow...</font></font>Goozman's post seems accurate for the information it -does- have. However, it fails to declare a lot about what truely is healing. Saying someone is a "good direct healer" in the limited manner Goozman does, unfortunately means little if only a third of heal spells are evaluated. Goozman's comments could be deceptive and misleading when it comes to the overall topic of how good Inquisitors are at healing.I can quite easily replicate this post to cater to any other healer class in the game, covering their healing aspects, convertion ratios etc etc. I might do one tomorrow for Warden Vs Inquisitor... That one would be ugly. But ultimately, and to the point...The numbers I have posted above, do the talking. Inquisitors are not the best at healing. We're a long way from it.- Avirodar- 70 Inquisitor, Dissolution, Nektulos.<p>Message Edited by Trinral on <span class="date_text">12-10-2006</span> <span class="time_text">10:45 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>That's an interesting point, and yes, I don't think anyone will disagree that druids are much more effective at group heals than inquisitors (or any other class for that matter). With that said, your data is misleading as well, because you will <i>never</i> see that volume of healing done in a 10 second period. Ever. We can pull out hypotheticals till we drop dead, but if they are not pertinent to any experience <u>in game</u>, they are worth bollocks.By the way, how did you get the power cost of convert down to 30? I thought I was doing well at 40.</div>

[Sokolov]

For those interested in some healing numbers, you can look at my sig for a post to some older numbers (T5).  But they should still roughly apply.  From what I can see, theoritical healing potential is about equal across the board no matter how you heal or how fast you heal if you only look at the 2 direct heal lines and the 2 special heal lines (Wards/Regen/Reactives).  Beyond that, however, things such as the Defiler's Spiritual Circle and the Fury's Back into the Fray are additional advantages that those classes have that "break" the balance.<div></div>

[Israphil]

<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:For those interested in some healing numbers, you can look at my sig for a post to some older numbers (T5).  But they should still roughly apply.  From what I can see, theoritical healing potential is about equal across the board no matter how you heal or how fast you heal if you only look at the 2 direct heal lines and the 2 special heal lines (Wards/Regen/Reactives).  Beyond that, however, things such as the Defiler's Spiritual Circle and the Fury's Back into the Fray are additional advantages that those classes have that "break" the balance.<div></div><hr></blockquote>You forgot about convert, that we have, that also "breaks" the balance.</div>

[Sokolov]

I didn't forget.  I am not going to list every single spell of every class in a sentence whose purpose was to cite a couple of examples to illustrate the point.<div></div>

[Avirodar]

<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:For those interested in some healing numbers, you can look at my sig for a post to some older numbers (T5).  But they should still roughly apply.  From what I can see, theoritical <b><font color="#ffff66">healing potential is about equal </font></b>across the board no matter how you heal or how fast you heal if you only look at the 2 direct heal lines and <b><font color="#ffff66">the 2 special heal lines (Wards/Regen/Reactives)</font></b>.  Beyond that, however, things such as the Defiler's Spiritual Circle and the Fury's Back into the Fray are additional advantages that those classes have that "break" the balance.<div></div><hr></blockquote><font face="Arial">Fury: </font><font face="Courier New"><font face="Arial">Owl's Reparation      - Grp HoT, 3.0s, 356p, <font color="#ffff66">17946 hp, 50.4 ratio</font>, 12s recastInq: Malevolent Diatribe    - Grp HR, 5.0s, 356p,  <font color="#ffff66">4486 hp, 12.6 ratio</font>, 15s recastThey may have compared back in T5? Unfortunately, they no longer do. Furies now have faster casting heals, more heals, and a better overall hp-power conversion ratio.If you have not already, you should grab a copy of the EQ2IDB program and update the spells and information in your post to reflect the current age, and base it on either Adept3's or Master1's instead. Your healing guide is a very detailed, well formatted post. Kind of sad to see it's a little out of date. Don't let your original effort fall behind, update and see if you can double the view count on that post over this expansion <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Anyway, if you suspect that any other healing class has the same healing potential as an Inquisitor, I would be happy to compile the current statistics. I am confident that the numbers will show Inquisitors on the short end of the stick.- Avi</font></font></div>

[Avirodar]

And one quick comment, For those who try to claim convert to be our saviour when trying to compete with other healers, this is a re-run of the heal output capacity with Convert on...<font face="Courier New"><font face="Arial">Without counting cool down timers (usually 0.5 seconds), in 9.5 seconds a Fury can cast a group HoT, 3 direct heals, and 2 group heals, a total capacity of 35,379 hp, costing a total of 1331 power.Without counting cool down timers (usually 0.5 seconds), in 13 seconds an Inq can cast a group RH, 2 direct heals, and a group heal, a total capacity of 17,298 hp, costing a total of 1532 power.Short-hand:<font face="Courier New">Fury: 9.5 seconds, 1331 power, 35,379 hp.  Power-Heal Ratio = 26.5Inq:   13 seconds, 1532 power, 17,298 hp.  Power-Heal Ratio = 11.3</font>It costs the Inquisitor more power to do half the healing, and takes the Inquisitor almost 1.5 times as long to do it.Enough said.- Avirodar</font></font><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Trinral wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:For those interested in some healing numbers, you can look at my sig for a post to some older numbers (T5).  But they should still roughly apply.  From what I can see, theoritical <b><font color="#ffff66">healing potential is about equal </font></b>across the board no matter how you heal or how fast you heal if you only look at the 2 direct heal lines and <b><font color="#ffff66">the 2 special heal lines (Wards/Regen/Reactives)</font></b>.  Beyond that, however, things such as the Defiler's Spiritual Circle and the Fury's Back into the Fray are additional advantages that those classes have that "break" the balance.<div></div><hr></blockquote><font face="Arial">Fury: </font><font face="Courier New"><font face="Arial">Owl's Reparation      - Grp HoT, 3.0s, 356p, <font color="#ffff66">17946 hp, 50.4 ratio</font>, 12s recastInq: Malevolent Diatribe    - Grp HR, 5.0s, 356p,  <font color="#ffff66">4486 hp, 12.6 ratio</font>, 15s recastThey may have compared back in T5? Unfortunately, they no longer do. Furies now have faster casting heals, more heals, and a better overall hp-power conversion ratio.If you have not already, you should grab a copy of the EQ2IDB program and update the spells and information in your post to reflect the current age, and base it on either Adept3's or Master1's instead. Your healing guide is a very detailed, well formatted post. Kind of sad to see it's a little out of date. Don't let your original effort fall behind, update and see if you can double the view count on that post over this expansion <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Anyway, if you suspect that any other healing class has the same healing potential as an Inquisitor, I would be happy to compile the current statistics. I am confident that the numbers will show Inquisitors on the short end of the stick.- Avi</font></font></div><hr></blockquote>Your numbers are comparing group heal potential.  You have rigged your "comparison" to illustrate a situation where Regens are the most powerful and Reactives the least.The Group Reactives have not lost ground in moving between T5 and T7:<b>T5 Regen:Group Regen (L56 A1)</b>Power 288Cast Time 3sRecast 12s* 257-314 instantly and every 2 seconds for 10 secondsHeal Potential: 1713 (based on average tick of 285.5)Health/Power: 5.95Health/Second: 114.20<b>T7 Regen:Group Regen (L70 A1)</b> Power 356 Cast Time 3s Recast 12s * 336-411 instantly and every 2 seconds for 10 secondsHeal Potential: 2214(based on average tick of 373.5) (29% increase)Health/Power: 6.22 (4.5% increase)Health/Second: 147.60 (29% increase)<b>T5 Reactive:Group Reactive (L56 A1)</b>Power 288Cast Time 5sRecast 15* up to 9 proc heals of 257-314Heal Potential: 2569.5 (based on average proc of 285.5)Health/Power: 8.92Health/Second: 128.48 <b>T7 Reactive: Group Reactive (L70 A1)</b> Power 356 Cast Time 5s Recast 15 * up to 9 proc heals of 336-411 Heal Potential: 3361.5 (based on average proc of 373.5) (30.8% increase) Health/Power: 9.44 (5.9% increase) Health/Second: 168.05 (30.8% increase)<b>T5 Ward:Group Ward (L56 A1)</b>Power 288Cast Time 5sRecast 15s* Wards group for 1917 damageHeal Potential: 1917Health/Power: 6.66Health/Second: 95.85<b>T7 Ward: Group Ward (70 A1) </b>Power 356 Cast Time 5s Recast 15s * Wards group for 2509 damage Heal Potential: 2509 (30.8% increase) Health/Power: 7.05 (5.8% increase) Health/Second: 125.45 (30.8% increase)In fact, as you can see based on the above, the Reactives gained power relative to Regens when comparing across Tiers.You may argue I should be considering the Group Regen as healing the entire group all the time - but you seem to like the rest of my post, which was all done with single target considerations.  The problem with looking at Group Regens as healing the entire group is that it completely skews the numbers in the Group Regen's favor.  And everyone intuitively knows that if the entire group is hurt then a Group Regen is invaluable. So while Group Regens have the advantage of scaling well to AE damage across group members, according to the numbers above, they are less efficient on a single target with respect to Health Healed per Power as well as Health per Second.  I would say they are balanced.EDIT: Added Ward info just for fun.  Note that the Ward numbers are even worse than the Reactives.  But we also recognize the advantages a Ward has over other specialty heal types, just like we recognize the advantages of Reactives and Regens.</div><p></p><p><span class="time_text">In any case, I still maintain that theoritical healing potential is about equal across the board for all priests if you are considering the 2 direct heal lines and the 2 specialty heal lines.</span></p><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>12-10-2006</span> <span class=time_text>12:52 PM</span>

[LardLord]

<P>It's not at all uncommon for all six members of a group to take AE damage on raids.  In that situation:</P> <P><EM>Fury's Owl Reparation: 1436 H/S @ 23 P/S</EM></P> <P><EM>Inquisitor's Reproachful Alleviation: 771 H/S @ 37.5 P/S</EM></P> <P><EM>Inquisitor's Reproachful Alleviation + Malevolent Diatribe: 990 H/S @ 55 P/S</EM></P> <P>For single target healing, the classes aren't so far apart:</P> <P><EM>Fury's Wild Salve + Nature's Elixer + Back Into the Fray (B) + Greater Bloodflow: 755 H/S @ 78 P/S</EM></P> <P><EM>Inquisitor's Devoted Ministration + Fanatical Healing + Suffering Penance + Malevolent Diatribe: 760 H/S @ 84 P/S</EM></P> <P><EM>Inquisitor's Devoted Ministration + Fanatical Healing + Suffering Penance + Malevolent Diatribe + Convert: 820 H/S @ 99 P/S</EM></P> <P>Regardless of the specific numbers, I think most of us can agree on two things: 1) Inquisitors and Furies are fairly well-balanced for single-target healing.  2) Furies heal AE damage <EM>much </EM>better than Inquisitors. </P> <P>Overall, is that really balance?  I don't think so.  </P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by LardLord on <span class=date_text>12-10-2006</span> <span class=time_text>12:53 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

<blockquote><hr>LardLord wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <p>Regardless of the specific numbers, I think most of us can agree on two things: 1) Inquisitors and Furies are fairly well-balanced for single-target healing.  2) Furies heal AE damage <em>much </em>better than Inquisitors. </p><p>Message Edited by LardLord on <span class="date_text">12-10-2006</span> <span class="time_text">12:53 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>I have a few comments:1 - It might not be "uncommon" but it is hardly the norm.  Typically, at least half the raid should be outside of AE range, and many should resist the AE at least partially, if not outright.  Typically, you should have less than 12 members needing healing after any AE for optimal performance.2 - Even still, is it necessary to heal up every single member?  My answer?  Hardly.  In fact, on some mobs, taking limited healing available off the main tank or not keeping debuffs up to top off your own group would be folly.3 - On the Group Reactive vs Group Regen - the Group Reactive Inquisitors have offers a definite advanatge in terms of time and power use.  This "cost" allows the Group Regen to do what it can do in an AE healing situation.4 - Templars are in the exact same situation as Inquisitors based on the above.  And Shaman efficiency numbers are even worse.Apparently tho, somehow,Inquisitors have it the worst?  I don't think so.<div></div>

[LardLord]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><BR>Apparently tho, somehow,Inquisitors have it the worst?  I don't think so.<BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No, Inquisitors don't have it the worst.  I'm saying Druids have it the best.</P> <P>EDIT: This is another example of how the game was balanced for heroic content and how that balance falls apart against epics.  AE healing is generally much more important on raids than in groups.</P><p>Message Edited by LardLord on <span class=date_text>12-10-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:19 PM</span>

[Israphil]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>LardLord wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Sokolov wrote:Apparently tho, somehow,Inquisitors have it the worst?  I don't think so. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>No, Inquisitors don't have it the worst.  I'm saying Druids have it the best.</p> <p>EDIT: This is another example of how the game was balanced for heroic content and how that balance falls apart against epics.  AE healing is generally much more important on raids than in groups.</p><p>Message Edited by LardLord on <span class="date_text">12-10-2006</span> <span class="time_text">01:19 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>I agree that druids have it the best on ae fights, but I disagree that this game was balanced solely for heroic content. It's balanced for heroic pvp content <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span>Just kidding, sort of...anyway, I think it's fine personally that druids are better ae healers than we are. We have debuffs that they don't offer, we offer better hp buffs to our group, have greater power regen for longevity, and can outdps them very often by simply autoattacking. Not to mention situational convert that makes our spot heals much much better. Just because they're better than us at one thing, doesn't mean we're underpowered or they're overpowered. We're not wardens; we aren't almost-pure healers...we're the whole package, and I dunno about you guys, but I think the package I bring to every fight is pretty big.</div><p>Message Edited by rckmer on <span class=date_text>12-10-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:34 AM</span>

[LardLord]

<P>For healers, healing needs to be balanced independently of utility (DPS/Buffs/Debuff/ect.).  If a healer can't keep his or her group alive, all that extra stuff is meaningless.  But that's a different debate.  </P> <P> </P>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>LardLord wrote:<div></div> <p>For healers, healing needs to be balanced independently of utility (DPS/Buffs/Debuff/ect.).  If a healer can't keep his or her group alive, all that extra stuff is meaningless.  But that's a different debate.  </p> <hr></blockquote>I feel that I have adequately shown that the main healing lines are balanced with each healing type exhibiting advantages and disadvantages in various situations.Additionally, spells outside of the main lines, even if they involve healing, should be balanced to each other and not to the main heal lines (such as Ancient Spells).  If one were to try and combine everything you would not get a clear picture.  Now, whether THESE are balanced... I can't say.  But it does not feel too far out of whack.  (Awhile back I was going to do an experiment... by listing, at every level, all the spells from every priest class and getting people to vote on which spell they would take.  In effect, you would be "building" your own spell line at every level.  Then I could tally the number of spells from each priest that got chosen and we would see just which spells priests in general find useful and whether any particular priests' line-up is favoured above others.  If anyone else thinks this might be interesting, I will work on it =D)</div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>12-10-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:06 PM</span>

[Tarta]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LardLord wrote:<BR> <P>For healers, healing needs to be balanced independently of utility (DPS/Buffs/Debuff/ect.).  If a healer can't keep his or her group alive, all that extra stuff is meaningless.  But that's a different debate. <BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>/agree</P> <P>The way things are now, in a raid I am in the scout/melee group. Most of these people have nearly zero ranged dps, so if they don't get into AE range we're going to have very poor dps as a whole. Ever since the combat updates that were supposedly made to alleviate lower mitigation / resist players from getting one-shotted by Epics, these guys are taking AE damage like I've <STRONG>never</STRONG> had to deal with before. I need a druid in my group to group HoT these guys, because the simple and sad truth as I see it is that I can no longer keep up with the damage they're taking.</P> <P>Maybe that's why were were given AAs to enhance our rez's... now if only they would repair the gear as well, then I wouldn't feel like I need to comp these guys some repair kits at the end of the night.</P> <P>Our debuffs do not seem to be capable of bridging this humongus healing discrepancy.</P> <P><BR> </P>

[Sokolov]

<div><blockquote><hr>primaryKey wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> LardLord wrote: <div></div> <p>For healers, healing needs to be balanced independently of utility (DPS/Buffs/Debuff/ect.).  If a healer can't keep his or her group alive, all that extra stuff is meaningless.  But that's a different debate. </p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>/agree</p> <p>The way things are now, in a raid I am in the scout/melee group. Most of these people have nearly zero ranged dps, so if they don't get into AE range we're going to have very poor dps as a whole.</p><hr></blockquote>That's an interesting prespective.  It is true that Inq gets placed into the melee groups often, isn't it?  Question for you folks then, is this justified?  Do you really help melee damage out that much?  Would it be more to the advantage of the raid for a raid leader to put healers that can keep each group alive (i.e. Druid with Melee)?  Is it even really that beneficial to stack all the melee together (remembering that many mage classes give in-group melee procs)?</div>

[menelaus109]

<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>primaryKey wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> LardLord wrote: <div></div> <p>For healers, healing needs to be balanced independently of utility (DPS/Buffs/Debuff/ect.).  If a healer can't keep his or her group alive, all that extra stuff is meaningless.  But that's a different debate. </p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>/agree</p> <p>The way things are now, in a raid I am in the scout/melee group. Most of these people have nearly zero ranged dps, so if they don't get into AE range we're going to have very poor dps as a whole.</p><hr></blockquote>That's an interesting prespective.  It is true that Inq gets placed into the melee groups often, isn't it?  Question for you folks then, is this justified?  Do you really help melee damage out that much?  Would it be more to the advantage of the raid for a raid leader to put healers that can keep each group alive (i.e. Druid with Melee)?  Is it even really that beneficial to stack all the melee together (remembering that many mage classes give in-group melee procs)?</div><hr></blockquote>I think the benefit an Inq brings to a group depends on the group makeup, some raids favour a 'melee DPS' group and a 'ranged DPS' group, in this situation the DPS buffs, Haste and Act proc are great ( i know Act procs on all attacks but it definitely works better for melee DPS classes)Whereas some raids like to mix and match ranged and melee DPS to maximise the benefit of procs and buffs, in this situation the Haste and DPS buffs are much less useful to mages and pet classes, though the HP component helps, instead its a case of buffing resists and HP as much as possibleIts my personal opinion that instead of placing an Inq in the melee group the off tank group would be a better place instead of a second templar and put druids into both DPS groups (assuming 1 MT group with 3 healers, 1 offtank group with 2 healers and 2 mixed DPS groups with 1 healer each) In the offtank group the inq can add a stoneskin like proc to the offtank, generate hate through the punishments line when offtanking adds, boost the offtank DPS and hence hate generation as well as HP (though not as much as a temp), provide a limited damage immunity to the offtank for emergencies,  i also find FO is more effective against groups of heroic and 'semi epic' adds than boss epics. And as Goozman established we are one of the best single target direct healers, In the offtank group we can take advantage of all our strengths without suffering from any of the drawbacks, or at least minimising themId love to know if any Inqs have made a home for themselives in the offtank group and specced AAs accordingly</div>

[menelaus109]

<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<blockquote><hr>LardLord wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <p>Regardless of the specific numbers, I think most of us can agree on two things: 1) Inquisitors and Furies are fairly well-balanced for single-target healing.  2) Furies heal AE damage <em>much </em>better than Inquisitors. </p><p>Message Edited by LardLord on <span class="date_text">12-10-2006</span> <span class="time_text">12:53 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>I have a few comments:1 - It might not be "uncommon" but it is hardly the norm.  Typically, at least half the raid should be outside of AE range, and many should resist the AE at least partially, if not outright.  Typically, you should have less than 12 members needing healing after any AE for optimal performance.2 - Even still, is it necessary to heal up every single member?  My answer?  Hardly.  In fact, on some mobs, taking limited healing available off the main tank or not keeping debuffs up to top off your own group would be folly.3 - On the Group Reactive vs Group Regen - the Group Reactive Inquisitors have offers a definite advanatge in terms of time and power use.  This "cost" allows the Group Regen to do what it can do in an AE healing situation.4 - Templars are in the exact same situation as Inquisitors based on the above.  And Shaman efficiency numbers are even worse.<font color="#cc0000">Templars are in a much better position than Inqs when it comes to group healing, comparing the group direct heals group and reactives gives Inqs a slight edge i believe?However if you also consider that a templar has:A spell that converts power consumed to HP for a single targetA group magic ward (not sure if it converts to HP if not used though)Group HP redistributionA 5% chance for a single ally to proc a 600 point group heal on succesful attacksA 1k group heal triggered when the targetted mob diesTemplars also get a reverse healing reactive which heals the mobs target</font><font color="#cc0000">Admittedly we do get Convert which is great however even the very best equipped Inqs cannot maintain it permanently </font>Apparently tho, somehow,Inquisitors have it the worst?  I don't think so.<font color="#cc0000">Im afraid we do, in terms of healers ability to replenish a groups HP as quickly as possible Inqs are bottom of the pile and its group healing that is importantWe may have a slight edge over temps in terms of single target healing ability however our lack of defensive buffs means we wont be the the cleric of choice for the MT group</font><div></div><hr></blockquote></div>

[Goozman]

<DIV>Ok, I don't know how to quote multiple posts so I'll just reply like this</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To the guy who said I am making Inquisitors look good by showing only where they really excel... I said I was only showing direct healing. I said inititally they were among the 2 best direct healers, but people argued, called bs, and said Templars of all things were better DIRECT healers (totally bogus). Including regens, reactives, etc is worthless as they aren't direct and have other factors involved to use them to their fullest potential... I don't think you'll find many people who would trade reactives for regens... except possibly raiding inquisitors who are always in dps groups.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To the guy who said a Fury can do so much more in 9.5 seconds than an Inquisitor can without factoring in recovery timers.... HELLO You didn't include recovery timers so your information is worthless. A fury has to cast more spells to keep up with an Inquisitor, so they are hurt more by recovery timers. All you are doing is manipulating data to show Furies are so much better, but you're wrong lol.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Goozman on <span class=date_text>12-10-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:16 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

<div><blockquote><hr>menelaus109 wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<blockquote><hr>LardLord wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <p>Regardless of the specific numbers, I think most of us can agree on two things: 1) Inquisitors and Furies are fairly well-balanced for single-target healing.  2) Furies heal AE damage <em>much </em>better than Inquisitors. </p><p>Message Edited by LardLord on <span class="date_text">12-10-2006</span> <span class="time_text">12:53 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>I have a few comments:1 - It might not be "uncommon" but it is hardly the norm.  Typically, at least half the raid should be outside of AE range, and many should resist the AE at least partially, if not outright.  Typically, you should have less than 12 members needing healing after any AE for optimal performance.2 - Even still, is it necessary to heal up every single member?  My answer?  Hardly.  In fact, on some mobs, taking limited healing available off the main tank or not keeping debuffs up to top off your own group would be folly.3 - On the Group Reactive vs Group Regen - the Group Reactive Inquisitors have offers a definite advanatge in terms of time and power use.  This "cost" allows the Group Regen to do what it can do in an AE healing situation.4 - Templars are in the exact same situation as Inquisitors based on the above.  And Shaman efficiency numbers are even worse.<font color="#cc0000">Templars are in a much better position than Inqs when it comes to group healing, comparing the group direct heals group and reactives gives Inqs a slight edge i believe?However if you also consider that a templar has:A spell that converts power consumed to HP for a single targetA group magic ward (not sure if it converts to HP if not used though)Group HP redistributionA 5% chance for a single ally to proc a 600 point group heal on succesful attacksA 1k group heal triggered when the targetted mob diesTemplars also get a reverse healing reactive which heals the mobs target</font><font color="#cc0000">Admittedly we do get Convert which is great however even the very best equipped Inqs cannot maintain it permanently </font>Apparently tho, somehow,Inquisitors have it the worst?  I don't think so.<font color="#cc0000">Im afraid we do, in terms of healers ability to replenish a groups HP as quickly as possible Inqs are bottom of the pile and its group healing that is importantWe may have a slight edge over temps in terms of single target healing ability however our lack of defensive buffs means we wont be the the cleric of choice for the MT group</font><div></div><hr></blockquote></div><hr></blockquote>It is certainly true that if one considers the entire package of spells, certain classes have a healing advantage.  But my point is that if you are looking at the main heal lines, they are balanced across the board.  And the rest of the spells, be they debuffs and addotionals heals, or DPS, should theoritically be balanced against each other.  </div>

[jago quicksilver]

<div><blockquote><hr>Goozman wrote:<div></div> <div>Ok, I don't know how to quote multiple posts so I'll just reply like this</div> <div> </div> <div>To the guy who said I am making Inquisitors look good by showing only where they really excel... I said I was only showing direct healing. I said inititally they were among the 2 best direct healers, but people argued, called bs, and said Templars of all things were better DIRECT healers (totally bogus). Including regens, reactives, etc is worthless as they aren't direct and have other factors involved to use them to their fullest potential... I don't think you'll find many people who would trade reactives for regens... except possibly raiding inquisitors who are always in dps groups.</div> <div> </div> <div>To the guy who said a Fury can do so much more in 9.5 seconds than an Inquisitor can without factoring in recovery timers.... HELLO You didn't include recovery timers so your information is worthless. A fury has to cast more spells to keep up with an Inquisitor, so they are hurt more by recovery timers. All you are doing is manipulating data to show Furies are so much better, but you're wrong lol.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div><p>Message Edited by Goozman on <span class="date_text">12-10-2006</span> <span class="time_text">05:16 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>im pretty sure that it was only 1 more heal casted by a fury, which would make it a whopping .5 seconds more, not something that would totally skew the data. factor in recovery timers for yourself, and you will still see we are far behind</div>

[jago quicksilver]

<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>menelaus109 wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<blockquote><hr>LardLord wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <p>Regardless of the specific numbers, I think most of us can agree on two things: 1) Inquisitors and Furies are fairly well-balanced for single-target healing.  2) Furies heal AE damage <em>much </em>better than Inquisitors. </p><p>Message Edited by LardLord on <span class="date_text">12-10-2006</span> <span class="time_text">12:53 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>I have a few comments:1 - It might not be "uncommon" but it is hardly the norm.  Typically, at least half the raid should be outside of AE range, and many should resist the AE at least partially, if not outright.  Typically, you should have less than 12 members needing healing after any AE for optimal performance.2 - Even still, is it necessary to heal up every single member?  My answer?  Hardly.  In fact, on some mobs, taking limited healing available off the main tank or not keeping debuffs up to top off your own group would be folly.3 - On the Group Reactive vs Group Regen - the Group Reactive Inquisitors have offers a definite advanatge in terms of time and power use.  This "cost" allows the Group Regen to do what it can do in an AE healing situation.4 - Templars are in the exact same situation as Inquisitors based on the above.  And Shaman efficiency numbers are even worse.<font color="#cc0000">Templars are in a much better position than Inqs when it comes to group healing, comparing the group direct heals group and reactives gives Inqs a slight edge i believe?However if you also consider that a templar has:A spell that converts power consumed to HP for a single targetA group magic ward (not sure if it converts to HP if not used though)Group HP redistributionA 5% chance for a single ally to proc a 600 point group heal on succesful attacksA 1k group heal triggered when the targetted mob diesTemplars also get a reverse healing reactive which heals the mobs target</font><font color="#cc0000">Admittedly we do get Convert which is great however even the very best equipped Inqs cannot maintain it permanently </font>Apparently tho, somehow,Inquisitors have it the worst?  I don't think so.<font color="#cc0000">Im afraid we do, in terms of healers ability to replenish a groups HP as quickly as possible Inqs are bottom of the pile and its group healing that is importantWe may have a slight edge over temps in terms of single target healing ability however our lack of defensive buffs means we wont be the the cleric of choice for the MT group</font><div></div><hr></blockquote></div><hr></blockquote>It is certainly true that if one considers the entire package of spells, certain classes have a healing advantage.  But my point is that if you are looking at the main heal lines, they are balanced across the board.  And the rest of the spells, be they debuffs and addotionals heals, or DPS, should theoritically be balanced against each other.  </div><hr></blockquote>thats exactly where the problem lies... the fact that the main heal lines are balanced across the boards, but when it comes to other heals, inquisitors have none, where every other class has at least 1 more spell to help them heal compared to us. not only that, but the fact that when we group heal, convert triggers 6 times, so it takes 6x the power. if that was made to only cost 1 trigger's worth, that in itself would close the gap a bit.</div>

[Avirodar]

<DIV>This thead was started by Ryklis, of Second Dawn, a member of a high end raiding guild. I assume he started this thread with the main intention of comparing how Inquisitors hold up against other healers, primarily against the new EoF content, by comparing total healing capacities, not limited single nature comparisons like some people have tried to push. I quote Ryklis: "<FONT color=#6699ff>its been much discussed that inquisitors are behind on the healing curve, so i decided to start a thread to show some statistics about this</FONT>".  If I assumed wrong, I welcome a correction from Ryklis.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ryklis never specified "Direct Heals only", nor did he specify "Heals on single targets only". I am sure most people who raid the new EoF content will concur that raid wide AoE damage is commonplace (and many can not be ranged), thus comparisons of group wide healing ability is paramount, and excluding such a factor is a blindside attempt of trying to disregard a massive discrepancy. It is also very important to keep people fully healed, unlike what another player has mentioned.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Failing to inclue all of the healing abilities a healer has, when comparing one healer to another, is simply ignorant. Nor is it fitting to the topic of the thread as specified by the original poster (Ryklis). To quote him again: "<FONT color=#3399ff>any zonewide parses from level 70 inquisitors will be much appreciated</FONT>". Zone wide parses do not compare only Direct Heal vs Direct Heal, or only Regen vs Ward, it compares the whole package, everything a healer can do, and how practical such abilities are in actual use (not just theory).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In reply to Goozman: "<FONT color=#ff6666>HELLO You didn't include recovery timers so your information is worthless</FONT>", umm dude, try learning how to read. Recovery timers are frequently referred to as cooldown timers. On heal spells, they are usually 0,5 seconds. To quote myself: "<FONT color=#00cc66>Without counting cool down timers (usually 0.5 seconds), in 9.5 seconds a druid can cast a group HoT, 3 direct heals, and 2 group heals, a total capacity of 35,379 hp.</FONT>" So if you want to get so pedantic, add 3 seconds to the druid cast time total, and 2 seconds to the Inq total. So the figures to make you happy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With recovery timers, in 12.5 seconds a druid can cast a group HoT, 3 direct heals, and 2 group heals, a total capacity of 35,379 hp.<BR>With recovery timers, in 15 seconds an Inq can cast a group RH, 2 direct heals, and a group heal, a total capacity of 14,120 hp.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Given the reuse on the furies slowest heal is 12 seconds (Owl's Reparation), this means a fury is fully capable of maintaing that rate of healing. In full flight, in one minute, a fury can heal 169,819hp, compared to the Inquisotors full flight output of 69192 in one minute (that's with convert on). So really, your being picky has only added weight to my argument about the massive descrepancy that exists. 100,000hp variance in one minute, is massive. Cheers bud. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So to sum it up: The purpose of this thread is to compare the total healing capacities of Inquisitors vs other healers, and I am pretty sure the focus of Ryklis will be on EoF raid content, as he was asking for zone wide raid parses from 70 Inquisitors.  Only comparing Direct_Heal_A Vs Direct_Heal_B and trying to pretend no other heals exist / matter, has no place on this thread. We're comparing total packages here, the whole picture, not just partials.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- Avirodar</DIV> <DIV>- 70 Inquisitor, Dissolution, Nektulos Server.</DIV>

[Tarta]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Trinral wrote:<BR> <DIV>...</DIV> <DIV>Given the reuse on the furies slowest heal is 12 seconds (Owl's Reparation), this means a fury is fully capable of maintaing that rate of healing. In full flight, in one minute, a fury can heal 169,819hp, compared to the Inquisotors full flight output of 69192 in one minute (that's with convert on). So really, your being picky has only added weight to my argument about the massive descrepancy that exists. 100,000hp variance in one minute, is massive. Cheers bud. </DIV> <DIV>...</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>:smileysad:<BR>

[Ssinu]

I think the last 10 or so posts show the issue... its a subtle one. Its a lot about how the game plays, and how our spells play out. Great numbers posts btw, and yea anyone can skew the numbers to their pov, but a simple chart/db like you mentioned is extremely helpful. Yes on paper we were all (priests) balanced to be good in various situations, but what's happening is, you got a Inquisitors being placed into a particular group on raids (offtank or scout melee), AE goes off, we lament how difficult it is to play our class.Does this mean we suck at soloing? No.Does this mean we suck at pvp? No.Does this mean we suck in a group? No.Again, this is about *raids*. Can they put us in another group, or give us a druid or a mystic or even another cleric to back up our heals? Yes. Is this fun for us? No. If we aren't buffing melee dps, we don't have much use, so putting us in another group (say mage group) would add in more frustration. We have 2 Inquisitors in our guild (used to be 3 til one converted to Templar), and now one Inquisitor is always in a "[Removed for Content]" group. And by [Removed for Content] I mean poor place for us to be healing - ie group with not any melee, or playing back up healer to the raid. This Inquisitor usually ends up debuffing/dpsing.And that person who said oh AE's don't happen much..well they do in EoF/Fallen Dynasty, and I'm sure that trend will continue. Unless they change what they are able to do with EQ2 raid scripting, AE's are a good way to provide challenge, and nearly every boss thus far in EoF has AEs, and no you can't stand outside them even with an extra 5m range <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. And thus comes to the issue - raids are heavily skewed toward AE damage (where we suck). In the rare case a backup dps/offtank is actually offtanking something wards fire before reactives and mobs are dead by the time more reactives/wards are needed.*If* raid content were more skewed with different style events where *each* class was given more chance to shine - heck many of them are cut and pastes of various AEs we have been seeing for many expansions - maybe this post wouldn't even be here. But its not. Right now fights are skewed toward main tank group focus and AE healing, period. Thing is this is only one side of the discussion, my boyfriend is a guardian in our guild and would love to see more offtanking fights for the same reason. Matron, Cheldrak, and Tender of Seedlings are not enough. <b><font color="#ccffcc">But as it stands right now, that's why you guys are seeing so many posts come EoF. Right now, our Achievements aren't balanced in the categories where we are weak for EoF raid content, and thus you are seeing discontent, and calls for changes to Achievemnts and our class mechanics. if there was suddenly an influx of offtanking where our reactives would actually fire, I think this would be a moot discussion.</font></b><font color="#cc66cc"><b>The question is, which will happen first? Variety of new raid content where offtank/scout/Inquis group shines, Inquisitors get a boost in our weak areas for current encounters, or nothing changes and only DPS Inquisitors eventually stay? Who knows.</b></font><div></div>

[Ssinu]

<div><blockquote><hr>Trinral wrote:<div>This thead was started by Ryklis, of Second Dawn, a member of a high end raiding guild. I assume he started this thread with the main intention of comparing how Inquisitors hold up against other healers, primarily against the new EoF content, by comparing total healing capacities, not limited single nature comparisons like some people have tried to push. I quote Ryklis: "<font color="#6699ff">its been much discussed that inquisitors are behind on the healing curve, so i decided to start a thread to show some statistics about this</font>".  If I assumed wrong, I welcome a correction from Ryklis.</div> <div> </div> <div><b>Ryklis never specified "Direct Heals only", nor did he specify "Heals on single targets only". I am sure most people who raid the new EoF content will concur that raid wide AoE damage is commonplace (and many can not be ranged), thus comparisons of group wide healing ability is paramount, and excluding such a factor is a blindside attempt of trying to disregard a massive discrepancy. It is also very important to keep people fully healed, unlike what another player has mentioned.</b></div> <div> </div> <div>Failing to inclue all of the healing abilities a healer has, when comparing one healer to another, is simply ignorant. Nor is it fitting to the topic of the thread as specified by the original poster (Ryklis). To quote him again: "<font color="#3399ff">any zonewide parses from level 70 inquisitors will be much appreciated</font>". Zone wide parses do not compare only Direct Heal vs Direct Heal, or only Regen vs Ward, it compares the whole package, everything a healer can do, and how practical such abilities are in actual use (not just theory).</div> <div> </div> ....<div> </div> <div><font color="#ff0000"><b>So to sum it up: The purpose of this thread is to compare the total healing capacities of Inquisitors vs other healers, and I am pretty sure the focus of Ryklis will be on EoF raid content, as he was asking for zone wide raid parses from 70 Inquisitors.  Only comparing Direct_Heal_A Vs Direct_Heal_B and trying to pretend no other heals exist / matter, has no place on this thread. We're comparing total packages here, the whole picture, not just partials.</b></font></div> <div> </div> <div>- Avirodar</div> <div>- 70 Inquisitor, Dissolution, Nektulos Server.</div><hr></blockquote>And yes, Trinal summed it up. This discussion isn't about how well we did back in T5 grouping as priests or how well we did in T6/T7.It's about EoF raid healing, and if you don't have information to provide or discuss on that basis, it's just side tracking the discussion. This discussion is focused about how things play out, pound for pound when priest A is pressing their heal buttons as fast as they can in the best order, and priest B is doing the same, but currently in EoF coming up short due to the nature of all bosses encountered thus far.</div>

[Ssinu]

Also, anecdotally - on fights that *do* need offtanking (matron, cheldrak, tender of seedlings) our raid leader generally puts the 2nd guild Templar in for that duty. So, the two Inquisitors are then in the scout group or even the mage group or just gets thrown in as back up healer in one of the groups, or the second Inquisitor switches chars to his 70  brigand.Is our guild priest heavy? Sure. We have had the fortune to have more priests be solid reliable players in the last two years than some other classes. But it doesn't take away that given the choice on an offtank fight, our DPS buffs are not enough to win over a templar in that slot. Mind you this is not the MT group. Would the Inquis be in that slot if no other choice? Yea, and we will manage through, but its not what we are suited for.<div></div>

[Bayler_x]

A note about direct healing:  Druids and shamen have a much lower need to ever direct heal than clerics.  Clerics are the only priest class whose efficient heals rely entirely on proactive casting.  To make our spells work, we need to anticipate where and when the damage will be going, seconds before it happens.  If we're wrong, we have to use direct heals to clean up.  Druids' regen spells work just as well if they're cast just before or just after the damage occurs; they have the luxury of being able to react to what actually happens in a fight, rather than having to anticipate it.  Shamen's wards are certainly better when used proactively, but if they're not used they turn into an (efficient) instant heal at the end of their timers.Wearing the crown of best direct healers doesn't mean much.  How often do druids ever actually use their direct heals?  Realisticly, in most cases where an inquisitor has no choice but to use a direct heal, a druid will use a heal over time.  Try comparing the efficiency of our direct heals to druid HoTs.<div></div>

[LardLord]

The discussion about putting us in the offtank group is interesting.  The devs may envision us in that new role.  I just don't really see why we'd be any better in that spot than a Templar. 

[jago quicksilver]

<div><blockquote><hr>LardLord wrote:The discussion about putting us in the offtank group is interesting.  The devs may envision us in that new role.  I just don't really see why we'd be any better in that spot than a Templar. <hr></blockquote>i play as the off tank cleric, which is why i asked for parses from people in all sorts of positions on raids. and Avirodar is right, i asked for parses,to see how we are faring compared to other healers in different situations (like i stated in my original thread) because all of the theoretical stuff that has been posted can only be backed by field testing. </div>

[juz]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>menelaus109 wrote:</P> <P>Its my personal opinion that instead of placing an Inq in the melee group the off tank group would be a better place instead of a second templar and put druids into both DPS groups (assuming 1 MT group with 3 healers, 1 offtank group with 2 healers and 2 mixed DPS groups with 1 healer each)<STRONG><U> In the offtank group the inq can add a stoneskin like proc to the offtank</U></STRONG>, generate hate through the punishments line when offtanking adds, boost the offtank DPS and hence hate generation as well as HP (though not as much as a temp), provide a limited damage immunity to the offtank for emergencies,  i also find FO is more effective against groups of heroic and 'semi epic' adds than boss epics. And as Goozman established we are one of the best single target direct healers, In the offtank group we can take advantage of all our strengths without suffering from any of the drawbacks, or at least minimising them<BR><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>May I ask what proc are you talking about?</P>

[menelaus109]

<div><blockquote><hr>juzamaku wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <p></p> <hr> <p>menelaus109 wrote:</p> <p>Its my personal opinion that instead of placing an Inq in the melee group the off tank group would be a better place instead of a second templar and put druids into both DPS groups (assuming 1 MT group with 3 healers, 1 offtank group with 2 healers and 2 mixed DPS groups with 1 healer each)<strong><u> In the offtank group the inq can add a stoneskin like proc to the offtank</u></strong>, generate hate through the punishments line when offtanking adds, boost the offtank DPS and hence hate generation as well as HP (though not as much as a temp), provide a limited damage immunity to the offtank for emergencies,  i also find FO is more effective against groups of heroic and 'semi epic' adds than boss epics. And as Goozman established we are one of the best single target direct healers, In the offtank group we can take advantage of all our strengths without suffering from any of the drawbacks, or at least minimising them</p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>May I ask what proc are you talking about?</p><hr></blockquote>Shield Ally from the KoS AA'sThe term 'Stoneskin like proc' is probably a bit misleading, apologies. I couldnt think of any other way of describing the ability to absorb/block incoming attacks on an ally. Im not commenting on its usefulness or effectiveness just that we have the abilityAs nice as the ability is its worth mentioning that templars can get the same ability from the AA's and also have a spell that does the same job with a 10% or so chance to abosrb incoming damage damage</div>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Trinral wrote:<div>This thead was started by Ryklis, of Second Dawn, a member of a high end raiding guild. I assume he started this thread with the main intention of comparing how Inquisitors hold up against other healers, primarily against the new EoF content, by comparing total healing capacities, not limited single nature comparisons like some people have tried to push. I quote Ryklis: "<font color="#6699ff">its been much discussed that inquisitors are behind on the healing curve, so i decided to start a thread to show some statistics about this</font>".  If I assumed wrong, I welcome a correction from Ryklis.</div> <div> </div> <div>Ryklis never specified "Direct Heals only", nor did he specify "Heals on single targets only". I am sure most people who raid the new EoF content will concur that raid wide AoE damage is commonplace (and many can not be ranged), thus comparisons of group wide healing ability is paramount, and excluding such a factor is a blindside attempt of trying to disregard a massive discrepancy. It is also very important to keep people fully healed, unlike what another player has mentioned.</div> <div> </div> <div>Failing to inclue all of the healing abilities a healer has, when comparing one healer to another, is simply ignorant. Nor is it fitting to the topic of the thread as specified by the original poster (Ryklis). To quote him again: "<font color="#3399ff">any zonewide parses from level 70 inquisitors will be much appreciated</font>". Zone wide parses do not compare only Direct Heal vs Direct Heal, or only Regen vs Ward, it compares the whole package, everything a healer can do, and how practical such abilities are in actual use (not just theory).</div> <div> </div> <div>In reply to Goozman: "<font color="#ff6666">HELLO You didn't include recovery timers so your information is worthless</font>", umm dude, try learning how to read. Recovery timers are frequently referred to as cooldown timers. On heal spells, they are usually 0,5 seconds. To quote myself: "<font color="#00cc66">Without counting cool down timers (usually 0.5 seconds), in 9.5 seconds a druid can cast a group HoT, 3 direct heals, and 2 group heals, a total capacity of 35,379 hp.</font>" So if you want to get so pedantic, add 3 seconds to the druid cast time total, and 2 seconds to the Inq total. So the figures to make you happy:</div> <div> </div> <div>With recovery timers, in 12.5 seconds a druid can cast a group HoT, 3 direct heals, and 2 group heals, a total capacity of 35,379 hp.With recovery timers, in 15 seconds an Inq can cast a group RH, 2 direct heals, and a group heal, a total capacity of 14,120 hp.</div> <div> </div> <div>Given the reuse on the furies slowest heal is 12 seconds (Owl's Reparation), this means a fury is fully capable of maintaing that rate of healing. In full flight, in one minute, a fury can heal 169,819hp, compared to the Inquisotors full flight output of 69192 in one minute (that's with convert on). So really, your being picky has only added weight to my argument about the massive descrepancy that exists. 100,000hp variance in one minute, is massive. Cheers bud. </div> <div> </div> <div>So to sum it up: The purpose of this thread is to compare the total healing capacities of Inquisitors vs other healers, and I am pretty sure the focus of Ryklis will be on EoF raid content, as he was asking for zone wide raid parses from 70 Inquisitors.  Only comparing Direct_Heal_A Vs Direct_Heal_B and trying to pretend no other heals exist / matter, has no place on this thread. We're comparing total packages here, the whole picture, not just partials.</div> <div> </div> <div>- Avirodar</div> <div>- 70 Inquisitor, Dissolution, Nektulos Server.</div><hr></blockquote>My healing guide strives to compare the main healing lines and types of the six priests in the game.  Your ONLY initial concern was that my data was outdated.  Since I have debunked that idea, It is interesting that you are now switching angles of attack on my argument.  Rather than saying that my data is outdated (admittedly it is, but the devs scaled the tiers accordingly, as i suspected), you are now saying that my data is not relevant to this discussion.  Fair enough, I suppose, but I feel you should have said this to begin with then.  If you felt this way to begin with, why say something about irrelevant data?  Doesn't make sense to me as it only led me to respond and explain why I did things the way I did in my guide and why your numbers for T7 does not fit with the data I had outlined and that saying they compared in T5 but not T7 is wrong, the Group Regen was ALWAYS vastly superior in AE situations.  ~In any case, in my defense, the idea of my guide was to provide a baseline for discussion.In this case, my guide postulates that direct healing is theoritical balanced over 60s, with a nod in overall healing to Wardens due to the fact that their direct heals are "delayed" but heal for more over time.  Inquisitors may have a slight advantage in actual single target healing due to other factors, but this advantage is not reflected in the base numbers as provided by my data.In terms of special healing, it is shown in the guide that Reactives have the highest theoritical efficiency.  In practice, we know that Wards have the advantage in terms of ability to reach theoritical efficiency limits, while Regens, particularly the Group Regen, have a tremendous potential to reach beyond the single target efficiency numbers due to its ability to scale to every member in the group.  I have also attempted to show that each heal type has its own advantages and disadvantages.  (Incidentally, Druids are constantly complaining that Clerics and Shamans heal better than they do because Regens heal last, etc., and some Shamans have been known to complain about small Wards and slow heals.)In addition, as stated by another player, the additional spell lines outside of the main heal lines offers the Inquisitor the least out of any priest in terms of additional healing.  It has been suggested by those in this thread that T7 EoF raiding offers more AE damage than ever before in the high end raiding scene.  As such, the value of AE potential of the Druid Group Regen has increased dramatically compared to the last tier.  By providing a baseline for discussion, we can examine this question and see whether Inquisitors really do fall behind as a healer type.<b>Question 1 - <i>Druids have always felt their healing was sub-par in T6 healing - many even felt their presence was not really needed on many raid mobs as Wards and Reactives more than covered the healing required.  With the advent of additional AE damage in T7 raiding, is this true any longer?   (Druid prespective would be useful here.)</i></b><b>Question 2 - <i>Along the same lines as Question 1, is the AE ability of one spell line with a 12s cast time enough to compensate for the lower max theoritical efficiency Regens (both single and group) normally have?  Note that the single target Regen has no such advantage but suffers from the same disadvantages and lower efficiency rates as the Group Regen in a single target situation.  </i></b><b>Question 3 - <i>It can be argued that Wards are even less efficient at dealing with AE damage, especially for an MT Shaman, as many Shamans utilizie the Group Wards as a larger Single Target Ward on the main tank.  AE damage significantly hurts the Shaman's ability to heal single target.  How do Reactive and Regen healers feel about this prespective?  Are Reactives even worse, or comparable?</i></b><b>Question 4 - <i>The additional spell lines outside of the main heal lines offers the Inquisitor the least out of any priest in terms of additional healing.  However, it was also stated by another player in this thread that Inquisitor debuffs may surpass even that of a Defiler.  How do players feel about the non-main heal spell lines which Inquisitors are offered compared to other priests?  Specifically for Inquisitors, do the Templar additional spells which offer healing provide the Templar any advantage in the AE department?  And how do the two set of non-main heal lines compare between the two Cleric classes?</i></b>(I am still interested in what spells everyone would take between say... level 56 and 70, I think that would really show us how the general population feels about the spell selections of each priest.  I just need to figure out a good way to collect this kind of data... maybe someday.  I am feeling rather motivated by this topic, really!)In any case, I love this kind of discussion, so I hope no one is offended by my words cause I am personally having fun with this.</div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">12-11-2006</span> <span class="time_text">03:46 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>12-11-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:46 PM</span>

[Goozman]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR><BR>(I am still interested in what spells everyone would take between say... level 56 and 70, I think that would really show us how the general population feels about the spell selections of each priest.  I just need to figure out a good way to collect this kind of data... maybe someday.  I am feeling rather motivated by this topic, really!)<BR><BR>In any case, I love this kind of discussion, so I hope no one is offended by my words cause I am personally having fun with this.<BR><BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's really interesting. I think I may just do that myself and come up with the God Priest, and see how many spells from each class I actually chose.</P><FONT size=2> <P>I went through my recipe book and came up with my idea of the perfect priest class. I only chose from like spells, so I didn't choose like 2 different nukes for 59, or 2 different heals for 57, etc... Some of them were hard decisions to make, others were incredibly obvious.</P> <P>Weird results... to me it looks like defilers have the most wicked spells. Both Druid classes have several lines of horrible crap, whereas Defilers, Mystics, and Inquisitors have much fewer crap spells (fears and short duration roots do suck though), Templars are somewhere between the two extremes. For 52 and 55, Fury came in a close second, for all the other levels I thought were hard to decide neither Fury nor Warden spells were among those I was having a hard time with.</P> <P>The total tally: Defiler: 10 spells; Mystic: 6 spells; Inquisitor: 5 spells; Warden: 5 spells; Fury: 3 spells; Templar: 3 spells.</P> <P>lol@thread hijacks</P> <P>note: I didn't include the actualy spell choices as it made the post 4x as long and would further derail this thread; but I would post them in your thread, S.</FONT><BR></P><p>Message Edited by Goozman on <span class=date_text>12-11-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:21 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div>Well, I am putting together the "Ballot" now if you want to wait till I put it out on the forums. (It will take a bit tho hehe) I will be asking people to list their level, their class, and playstyle, etc.  So that we can see if those factors affect choices and preceptions, etc.I also want to do it in such a way that I can count how many votes for each class' spells there are, and not just the ones that were chosen from each level.  i.e.  even if Templars have the most spells actually chosen, they may not be "overall" picked if you count the number of Templar spell votes.  If that makes any sense at all...<div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">12-11-2006</span> <span class="time_text">05:15 PM</span></p><p>Interesting what you say about level 57... as we get TWO spells for that level.  The way I have structured my ballot is that one 57 will be for the heals, and the other 57 will be for the non-heal, as those are the "real" choices, hypothetically speaking, lol<span class="time_text"></span></p><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>12-11-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:26 PM</span>

[Ssinu]

<blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div><b><i></i></b><b>Question 3 - <i>It can be argued that Wards are even less efficient at dealing with AE damage, especially for an MT Shaman, as many Shamans utilizie the Group Wards as a larger Single Target Ward on the main tank.  AE damage significantly hurts the Shaman's ability to heal single target.  How do Reactive and Regen healers feel about this prespective?  Are Reactives even worse, or comparable?</i></b><b>Question 4 - <i>The additional spell lines outside of the main heal lines offers the Inquisitor the least out of any priest in terms of additional healing.  However, it was also stated by another player in this thread that Inquisitor debuffs may surpass even that of a Defiler.  How do players feel about the non-main heal spell lines which Inquisitors are offered compared to other priests?  Specifically for Inquisitors, do the Templar additional spells which offer healing provide the Templar any advantage in the AE department?  And how do the two set of non-main heal lines compare between the two Cleric classes?</i></b>(I am still interested in what spells everyone would take between say... level 56 and 70, I think that would really show us how the general population feels about the spell selections of each priest.  I just need to figure out a good way to collect this kind of data... maybe someday.  I am feeling rather motivated by this topic, really!)In any case, I love this kind of discussion, so I hope no one is offended by my words cause I am personally having fun with this.</div> <hr></blockquote>Answering the 2 questions I can address: 3. Speaking with my best friend at length about EoF healing and about all these topics I think we both agree healing AE as Shaman/Cleric sucks, so yea any additional utilities (buff/heal) a class has is the only advantage here. 4. Inquisitor debuffs do not in anyway shape or form surpass defilers. They are kings in this area. slows and Malignancy -even nerfed- are still the most useful priest debuffs. We have a ae crush pierce slash debuff (swashbucklers get a single target version of this that does much more debuff of the same stat, nearly double almost triple), str/int debuff (as do SKs), and a mitigation debuff (hi brigands). With EoF we get Maldroit, useful on a few encounters but not needed. As far as our non main lines, I like convert, but as other have mentioned the power portion of it is not fun. It doesn't up our healing by some insane margin for its usefulness IMHO. Maybe if we had a few more non main line heals then it would be nice. With all healers mana being lower now in EoF, convert is hurting a lot more than it ever has, hopefully fixing Chilling Inquest will help. As far as Inquis vs Templar on AE lets see: Aegis of Faith Divine Arbitration Focused Benefaction/Intercession Glory of Combat Involuntary Restoration Mark of the Celestial Reverence   vs Convert. No contest again, even if all aren't directly useful like a ward or proc'd heals on AE they can alleviate the need to worry about that one guy taking additional damage, while also having to heal up the AE. But I don't have a problem with this per se, Inquis are offensive oriented clerics while templars are defensive.   ==== As far as the super priest discussion everyone could come up with a list, and also make a list of the worst priest by doing the same thing maybe? That would also be interesting. If you had to bring 5 out of the 6 priests on an EoF raid, who would you leave out and why? My answer would be Inquisitor due to DPS being able to be made up for in other ways as well as debuffs, next choice would be Mystic, although AE slow is really helpful so they win.  The way I see it, so far in EQ2 there is always someone of each of the 4 archtypes in the 'worst' shape, sometimes 2 but that's rare. I'm not so much complaining cause I'm at the bottom of EoF raid AE healing as there has to be a bottom,  but what else am I doing for the raid to get compensated? I too enjoy this discussion much more than "OMG everyone is fine, whine more pls." This is one of the few mmos where people don't like to discuss high end balance problems that occur with various content changes and releases. <div></div>

[Goozman]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote: <P>Interesting what you say about level 57... as we get TWO spells for that level.  The way I have structured my ballot is that one 57 will be for the heals, and the other 57 will be for the non-heal, as those are the "real" choices, hypothetically speaking, lol<BR><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Sokolov on <SPAN class=date_text>12-11-2006</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>05:26 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's what I meant in the paragraph where I described that. I onyl chose from like spells... for example on 60 I chose 1 large heal, 1 ae, and 1 group buff (or whatever each priest got instead)</P> <P>And if I had to take 5 priests and leave 1 out, there's no way I'd leave out an Inquisitor and hell no on a mystic. I would leave a warden out in their current form and a fury second. Although druids are efficient at healing an entire group after an ae, their efficiency isn't necessary as any priest can do the same job just for more power and maybe an extra 2 seconds of casting. Druids don't offer any adequate debuffs to help the raid, and minimal helpful buffing (Furies beat Wardens there).</P> <P>I think saying Inquisitor debuffs aren't great because other classes have a spell similar to each of yours doesn't really make sense... you have all of them in one class. Your 580 or so mitigation/resist debuff stacks with the coercer and brigand ones, so it's great. Your battle skill debuff stacks with the swashbuckler one, so it's great. Your 70+ str/int debuff is way superior to the defiler stat debuff now because it debuffs almost 2x as much... str and int is a blanket debuff to mob auto-attack, combat arts, and spells... that's pretty good. I just read all the defiler, mystic, and inquisitor debuffs so they are all fresh in my head and in my opinion Inquisitors surpass Defilers... but not Mystics.</P> <P></P> <HR> <P>For the poster under me, I pretty much disregard agi, sta, and wisdom debuffing as they are typically worthless... however, if you're debuffing 250 wisdom total, perhaps I did overlook that; that should equate to somewhere around 600 to all resists if it still works that way. I also don't typically consider a priest debuffing their own damage type (inquisitors do this too), tho with the amount of classes that do noxious damage, I probably should, as nearly 2000 is pretty significant. I purposely did not include the lotto slow/dps debuff, even though when it procs it is powerful, because it still is just lotto and I don't consider it a straight debuff (much like you hear templars complaining about lotto heals)</P> <P>I can retract my opinion that Inquisitors debuff better than defilers and revert to my original opinion earlier in this thread that they are the third best debuffers of the priests.<BR></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>You're also taking the way I used "have them all" out of context :smileytongue: I was refering to the 3 debuffs I mentioned, so they do "have them all"</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Now, putting all numbers and data aside... our Inquisitor always gets put in the dps group with a troubador, ranger, assorted other classes, and I've yet to see him have any trouble keeping the group alive through ae heavy encounters. He prefers being the sole healer because then he gets his high [Removed for Content] heal numbers on the parser.</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Goozman on <span class=date_text>12-12-2006</span> <span class=time_text>12:59 AM</span>

[Avirodar]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Goozman wrote: <p>I think saying Inquisitor debuffs aren't great because other classes have a spell similar to each of yours doesn't really make sense... you have all of them in one class. Your 580 or so mitigation/resist debuff stacks with the coercer and brigand ones, so it's great. Your battle skill debuff stacks with the swashbuckler one, so it's great. Your 70+ str/int debuff is way superior to the defiler stat debuff now because it debuffs almost 2x as much... str and int is a blanket debuff to mob auto-attack, combat arts, and spells... that's pretty good. I just read all the defiler, mystic, and inquisitor debuffs so they are all fresh in my head and Inquisitors definitely surpass Defilers... but not Mystics.</p><hr></blockquote><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666">Sokolov wrote:</font><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666">For information purposes, since I have a Defiler =D</font><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666">This is what a Defiler can do to a single target without AAs (+ signs signify that the additional amounts come more than one spell):</font><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666">STR - 76 + 48 =124</font><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666">AGI - 76 + 48 = 124</font><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666">STA - 48</font><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666">WIS - 76 + 48 + 126 = 250 </font><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666">INT - 48</font><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666">Attack Speed - 27 + 13.2 + 37 = 77.2</font><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666">DPS - 19.2 + 16.5 + 26 = 61.7</font><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666">Disease Resistance - 960 + 944 = 1904</font><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666">Poison Resistance - 960 + 944 = 1904</font><font color="#666666"></font><font color="#666666">Misc - Debuff which grants mob 8% chance of proccing a ward of 698 on the mob's target</font>Inquisitor's can debuff the following stats: <b>1)</b> Int+Str by 80 (Debase M1), <b>2)</b> Crush/Slash/Pierce by 27 (Forced Obedience M1) and <b>3)</b> Mitigation by 634 (Convict M1). As far as stat debuffs go, thats it. Inquisitors definitely don't "have them all".Based on the debuff information, it is fast obvious that Inquisitors do not surpass defilers in any way, shape, or form. That is unless Sokolov's information is wrong, and Defilers can not debuff 124 strength, 124 agility, 48 stamina, 250 wis, 48 int, 77 attack speed, 61 DPS,  and1900 vs disease and poison?As for how druids (furies and wardens) performed for healing in T6, both raid guilds I was in seen absolutely amazing heal parses by the druids, especially on zones like gates and many of the contested encounters. I was told Templars across the world were upset that they were being smoked on heal parses by a class they used to beat hands down, the druids.The "stone skin like proc" is called Shield Ally, and truth be told, it kinda stinks. What it does: Grants the target (single target only) a percentage chance (not a real good % either) to avoid being hit by a melee attack, by using the inquisitors avoidance.". Not that many Inquisitors would have an avoidance higher than 15-17% either, so it is a painful KoS AA to take at the expense of things such as Divine Recovery, Facile Grace and Inspired Renewal.Anyway, my original toon was a Fury, back before there ever was Desert of Flames. I rolled an inquisitor because I wanted better heals. This stood true until the era of DoF (T6), where HoTs were now ticking every 2 seconds, and the old T5 tactic of using level 20-ish heals to conserve power for long fights, became unfeasible (due to a large boost to incoming damage). Times change, they always do. It just sucks to be left in the dust. I don't care if I am not the #1 heal class, I just want to be able to -see- the competition in the healing race. Between massively broken AAs (some of which penalise, not enhance), a demonstrated shortfall in raw heal output capacity, and honestly, not a lot on the debuff front (to be considered noteworthy), it's a painful time to be an Inquisitor.Availability pending, Two Templars should/would always take priority in a MT and Off Tank group, over Inquisitors. This is due to sanctuary, stoneskin, lotto heals, and a bigger range of healing options. Unless a guild only has one Templar, Inquisitors always get put in DPS groups (often as sole healer), a position effectively dictated by SoE design. Because of this, and the nature of EoF content, Inquisitors need to be able to heal efficiently, including group healing, and in all reality, they don't.- Avi</div><p>Message Edited by Trinral on <span class=date_text>12-12-2006</span> <span class=time_text>12:42 AM</span>

[Chanah]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ghyro wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Goozman wrote:<BR> <DIV>Am I in bizarro world here? Inquisitors are among the 2 best direct healers not the worst, and have convert on top of that. I would have assumed Inquisitors would know this, but have you checked the cast, recast, and heal quantities of your heals vs other priests? It's amazing</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Inquisitors also have the 3rd best debuffs (of the priests), both increasing raid dps and lowering mob dps. They also have potentialy limitless power to chain cast their great heals, the dps of a lower "tier 2" or upper "tier 3" dps class, and respectable buffs, some of which people fight over.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I must have been smoking weed in my sleep or something because this thread is leaving me dumbfounded.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Somone with brains!</P> <P>btw,<B> have you noticed shaman's nerfs on their debuffs</B>? It might be very possible that we are the best debuffing class atm, I have not checked exactly what they debuff atm, but we getting close if we didnt pass em yet, also we are the only healer class that debuff the 2 only stats that decide mobs dps, which is ofcourse INT and STR.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What are you talking about exactly?  As far as I know only one spell was nerfed - which was a debuff that did 32% to all attributes now does a static number of 48.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>For information purposes, since I have a Defiler =D<BR><BR>This is what a Defiler can do to a single target without AAs (+ signs signify that the additional amounts come more than one spell):<BR><BR>STR - 76 + 48 =124<BR>AGI - 76 + 48 = 124<BR>STA - 48<BR>WIS - 76 + 48 + 126 = 250 <BR>INT - 48<BR>Attack Speed - 27 + 13.2 + 37 = 77.2<BR>DPS - 19.2 + 16.5 + 26 = 61.7<BR>Disease Resistance - 960 + 944 = 1904<BR>Poison Resistance - 960 + 944 = 1904<BR>Misc - Debuff which grants mob 8% chance of proccing a ward of 698 on the mob's target<BR><BR></DIV> <P>Message Edited by Sokolov on <SPAN class=date_text>12-10-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:52 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Thanks, thats nice info, I guess without the decrease attack speed and DPS we arent far behind.

[Vidar64]

<P>We have a few more debuffs tied up in our DOT spells.</P> <P>Symbol of Corruption (adept 3) - 38 Wis (24 sec. duration)  [note: level 35 spell from Bloodlines]</P> <P>Affliction (master 1) - 1072 mental (18 sec. duration)</P> <P>Absolving Flames (master 1) - 1040 divine (16 sec. duration)</P> <P>The last two have been seeing a lot more use.  Stacked with Convict, they really help guardians and paladins with getting their taunts to stick.</P> <P>Personally, I haven't had any trouble healing in groups.  On raids, its pretty rare that I'll top the healing parse for any one mob.  I spend far more time debuffing the mobs and when I can I'll throw Fanaticism up.  A lot of what we bring to a group or raid doesn't show up on the parses.  Debuffs only show up when resisted and dps/haste buffs show as someone elses damage.  All I can say is that the top 3 people doing dps on my last raid were all in my group and that the main tank held solid agro when we actually had more dps on that raid than usual.</P> <P>Oh, and for anyone who cares...</P> <P>Convict (master 1 + 5AA)  -  855 to all resists and mitigation</P> <P>Debase (adept 3 + 5AA)  -  95 to Str and Int</P> <P>Forced Obedience (master 2 +5AA)  -  37 to crush, pierce, slash and ranged.  (stack with Skull Crack and monks/bruisers simply do not seem to get hit anymore in group encounters).</P>

[Avirodar]

Aye, I did forget about the mental/divine debuffs. Thanks for the correction.With that said, does anyone honestly cast Symbol of Corruption, ever? In the time it takes to cast, there should always be a significantly more effective spell available to cast, that will inflict a lot more damage overall. If the wis debuff was double, or the damage was double, I might add it in, but right now, I dont find it worth the 1.75 seconds to cast a t4 spell.I originally heard we could use EoF AA in our KoS branch, and I did plan on using some to get the skull crack AA (which is single target, not group wide, so I assume you meant group encounters as being heroic instances, not groups of epic mobs in one encounter?), but the AA deal did not happen. With that said... People talking about having the Shield Ally and Skull Crack AAs...? Did you guys (and gals) seriously not take Divine Recovery + Inspired Renewal, and sacrifice one/both to get a low grade defence buff and/or a medium grade 1 hander hammer AA debuff? I am not calling it stupid, I am just suprised.As for being in a group with high DPS performers... Most raids go with a MT group, an OT group, and 2 DPS groups... If you're in the MT/OT group and people in your group are topping the raid DPS, something is wrong (in general). If you're not in a MT or OT group, there's a 50%+ chance people in your group should be on the top end of the DPS charts, regardless of the healer present.Vidar64 wrote "<font color="#6633ff">All I can say is that the top 3 people doing dps on my last raid were all in my group and that the main tank held solid agro when we actually had more dps on that raid than usual.</font>". I can safely say your MT holding solid agro had nothing to do with people in your group doing the top 3 DPS for people present. If your MT has more problems holding agro when people in your group do bad DPS.... *blink*A question for Vidar64/Cviidar: I just wanted to ask you how much of the raid content your guild has covered in EoF to date? I am not trying to be mean or nasty, I am asking in a serious manner. The reason I ask, is as I have mentioned a few times, EoF content seems to dish the damage (often AE orientated) a lot more than the mobs in KoS zones. In KoS I had no issue healing my group, it was almost cruise control. Zones like Freethinkers Hideout (eg : 4th name), Emerald Halls (A lot of it), and more, really let loose with the AE damage, and raise the workload of healers a lot. I would rather ask you that question, than to assume. If you guys are still working on cracking the EoF content, you're in for a delightful experience of mashing those heal buttons, when you get the opportunity. :o- Avi<div></div>

[Ssinu]

/Agree with Trinal/Avirodar<font color="#ccffcc"><b>I have a hard time believing we are all talking about the same thing, I would also like to know if people are talking about EH, Inner Sanctum or something else?</b></font>I did not say our debuffs were worthless, just replaceable. <b>I also did not say Inquisitors are the worst class ever, I said we need some work and I am giving examples why.</b> Slows (for example) are not replaceable, and being the top (or only) buffer/debuffer of a stat (or in most cases several) makes you useful outside of healing that would make a class lower on the healing end get a spot. I used other classes as examples (and guess what they debuff other things also and I didn't even get into bards and what not) that debuff particular stats *more* than us (Swashies do crush/pierce/slash by -75 with EoF armor set and AA). This would allow you to get that functionality from other places. Yes we stack with them never said we didn't.  If our str/int debuff was the reason you choose to take us then every raid guild would have SKs, but they don't this class is probably the worst off out of the 24 as far as holding a raid slot. Wardens get to stay because they are typically the main tank druid. If furies were to become the MT druid , then yea you could possibly leave out the warden, but if it were an EoF AE encounter (as what is being discussed here), then you probably want both druids for AE recovery from a healing standpoint. Mind you I was picking my 6th person to leave off based on EoF encounters and EoF healing. Debuffs are useful, but since just about all can be replaced except slows, no priest would be safe. Slow fights, keeping the group alive after AEs are much of the focus of EoF.  <b>As I said before, if this was KoS or some new expansion where there is ton of offtanking/melee hits on the raids, then maybe druids would be the ones lamenting their roles. (And I hope clerics wouldn't be on their boards patting them on their backs going "Hey you have great utility and you are the top AE healer." )That doesn't mean that they are whiny babies - it means that current content in the game is making them obsolete.</b>But that is your opinion, if you feel wardens are the worse off priest in EoF.<i>Quote from Goozman:Now, putting all numbers and data aside... our Inquisitor always gets put in the dps group with a troubador, ranger, assorted other classes, and I've yet to see him have any trouble keeping the group alive through ae heavy encounters. He prefers being the sole healer because then he gets his high [Removed for Content] heal numbers on the parser.</i><b>What encounters in EoF are you referring to here? I</b> have no issue healing on Clockwork Menance and parts of Freethinkers or anything KoS. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> We did matron the other night and with the changes after EoF we had to double up quite a few healers. Every one of us were taxed, with myself and the other Inquisitor being taxed the most. Keep in mind also, I have all my healing adornments except gloves, 1 piece of the fabled Inquisitor set, the + healing bracelet from Inner Sanctum, so when I'm complaining here, I'm complaining after receiving many of the healing upgrades I will see in EoF. As far as the DPS group goes, on the rare night both Inquisitors would be offline, the same names would top the DPS parse, and often we have casters at the top as well - that damage is not from me. Our DPS helps, but again, not irreplaceable.<div></div>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div>I would note that even slows and dps debuffs are not really irreplacable (if I understand how you mean by irreplacable).  A Mystic debuffs those two to a significant level (not qutie as much as a Defiler, I believe), and brigands, dirges, swashies, guardiands and zerkers all do one or the other or both.  In fact, in a typical raid setup, if the other classes keep their debuffs up, the Shaman theortically has no need to cast his slows or dps debuffs since it would already be at the cap.  (Realistically tho it's really the Shaman's job, in most cases).<div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">12-12-2006</span> <span class="time_text">03:05 PM</span></p><p><span class="time_text">Info for Shield Ally, doesn't sound too bad to me: http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=13&message.id=29082</span></p><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>12-12-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:34 PM</span>

[Ssinu]

Yes, a much better term for what I mean by irreplaceable is that its a persons "job". Other classes can combine or sub in for a job, but some classes do the job 'best'. The less needed the job is, the more likely it is to get subbed.Jobs for classes are good - then people want you for that role. The more someone has as primary the more versatile they are, if they have few but those few are in demand the class is often well liked.Again, consider some of the classes that are very rare on a raid guild roster - they are often not being recruited for a reason. Do they do some things that would be nice to have? Sure, but there is a reason they are rare usually.If certain jobs are more in demand for an expansion, the classes that do not have those talents will feel like their class is underpowered. Add in a few bugs here and there and you are gonna see posts asking for improvements.<div></div>

[LardLord]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ssinurn wrote:<BR><BR>If certain jobs are more in demand for an expansion, the classes that do not have those talents will feel like their class is underpowered. Add in a few bugs here and there and you are gonna see posts asking for improvements.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>And through KoS, most of us had the job of healing the melee DPS group.  Our buffs were/are very desirable to melee classes, and we could heal well enough to keep them alive.  However, now that AE damage is so much more significant, we're finding that we can no longer do that job (at least not nearly as well).  And if we can't do that job, there's really not much we can do. </P>