New AA lineup for best healing?

[Lisail]

<p>Trying to help a friend figure out which AA lineup in the new specs is best for healing and least DPS.  Any suggestions?</p>

[Maskone]

<p>see <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=474421">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=474421</a></p>

[Dillin]

<p>Depending on what you do dictates where to spend AAs.  The linked AA spec (First post in there) is OK for grouping.  For MT raiding, I don't agree with it.  Personally, with how SOE has reduced the amount of curing to be done, I'm not 100% on the cure AAs either.  They just seem like a waste of AAs now.  Personally, I'm still heavily evaluating what works and what doesn't.  </p>

[mafoe]

<p><cite>Maskone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>see <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=474421">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=474421</a></p></blockquote><p>Several bad choices there.</p><p>Use Battle Fervor 10pts instead of 8</p><p>Steadfast Resolve is not really necessary</p><p>Enhance: Rebuke is useless</p><p>Enhance: Harmony is useless</p><p>Put 5 points in Cleansing of the Soul</p><p>Enhance: Cure II is not very helpful</p><p>5 points in Seal of Faith</p><p>Protective Prayer and Secular Protection are both useless</p><p>Devout Incapacitation is useless</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p>Can you go into a bit more detail on your answers?  Like why is a 15% increase in physical mitigation useless or Steadfast Resolve not necessary, etc.?  There are various raid and group mobs that cast AOE stifles, for example.  And why would you not want to enhance Rebuke or Harmony?  Are you saying you don't notice a difference in the effect of Rebuke after 5 AA's are pumped into the spell?</p>

[mafoe]

Can you go into a bit more detail on your answers? Like why is a 15% increase in physical mitigation useless or Steadfast Resolve not necessary, etc.? There are various raid and group mobs that cast AOE stifles, for example. And why would you not want to enhance Rebuke or Harmony? Are you saying you don't notice a difference in the effect of Rebuke after 5 AA's are pumped into the spell? Sure, I can. +15% mit is a very small increase, insubstantial for tanks and scouts, a bit better for mages since theyre not as high on the diminishing returns curve I've done all group and easy raid content, and didnt need Steadfast Resolve. Most of the time I could just range stifle aoes in group content. In raids, I didnt experience stifles except vs one of the Pamare twins, and there it was inconsequential. Ah, Roehn Theer has a stifle if you kill a certain rune... Enhanced Rebuke - there are a lot of mitigation debuffs from various classes. In a raid, it doesnt make a noticeable difference, and in group content it's not necessary either due to the low mob HP. Harmony - I only get aggro when the tank is asleep. The stoneskin cure - in raids there are very few things to cure anyway, and if there are, you will be using the group cure. In any case, if somebody is below 30% health (aka red health) and has an impairment on him, its better to throw a heal first and then cure, defeating this entire stoneskin thing Seal of Faith improves Shield Ally, which is great

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>mafoe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Can you go into a bit more detail on your answers? Like why is a 15% increase in physical mitigation useless or Steadfast Resolve not necessary, etc.? There are various raid and group mobs that cast AOE stifles, for example. And why would you not want to enhance Rebuke or Harmony? Are you saying you don't notice a difference in the effect of Rebuke after 5 AA's are pumped into the spell? Sure, I can. +15% mit is a very small increase, insubstantial for tanks and scouts, a bit better for mages since theyre not as high on the diminishing returns curve I've done all group and easy raid content, and didnt need Steadfast Resolve. Most of the time I could just range stifle aoes in group content. In raids, I didnt experience stifles except vs one of the Pamare twins, and there it was inconsequential. Ah, Roehn Theer has a stifle if you kill a certain rune... Enhanced Rebuke - there are a lot of mitigation debuffs from various classes. In a raid, it doesnt make a noticeable difference, and in group content it's not necessary either due to the low mob HP. Harmony - I only get aggro when the tank is asleep. The stoneskin cure - in raids there are very few things to cure anyway, and if there are, you will be using the group cure. In any case, if somebody is below 30% health (aka red health) and has an impairment on him, its better to throw a heal first and then cure, defeating this entire stoneskin thing Seal of Faith improves Shield Ally, which is great</blockquote><p>+15% mit is a very small increase, insubstantial for tanks and scouts, a bit better for mages since theyre not as high on the diminishing returns curve</p><p>The +15% mitigation increase is actually better than what a Master would give you if you were at Expert.  It would be like upgrading past Master level.  Plus you have to think of squishies because  they need all the help they can get in this department, along with those leather healers.  This might even be the demographic that SOE is trying to hit with this AA enhancement.</p><p>Enhanced Rebuke - there are a lot of mitigation debuffs from various classes. In a raid, it doesnt make a noticeable difference, and in group content it's not necessary either due to the low mob HP. </p><p>That's like saying any one of those other classes' debuffs wouldn't amount to much.  Individually maybe that's true, but the point is several classes all casting their mitigation debuffs for a significant cumulative effect.   And I would think that during raids all those extra damage points done over a couple minutes from all those melee DPS starts to add up, especially if the raid happens to be melee heavy. </p><p>During single group boss fights this debuff is probably much more noticeable.  I don't have ACT to confirm this, but I would like to see a report showing otherwise.  You also have two different opportunities to enhance this debuff, once in the Templar line and once in the Shadows line.</p><p>Harmony - I only get aggro when the tank is asleep.</p><p>I have found this to be quite useful actually.  I've healed many shades of MT, from treasured-geared to raid-geared and raid-trained, and all of them will sometimes lose aggro to me, whether it's their fault or not, especially when I cast Divine Guidance on the group.  That spell just loves to suck adds directly to me, and sometimes all a tank has to do is be late for half a sec on one of his taunts for it to be too late, or worse, to have run out of taunts.  Any new adds that pop or wander into aggro range while this spell is going, and I have a very high probability of being their first target.  I almost feel like putting Harmony and Divine Guidance in a macro together.  That extra 2.5min reuse time has been a life-saver on many occasions.</p>

[mafoe]

<p>1. All healers get this AA choice, and all healers get the same mitigation amount on the buff, and it doesnt stack either. So unless you are routinely solo-healing a mage group (which I find hard to believe), let the squishier healers take this AA because they need it (as you said yourself), we don't. Those squishies will be much happier about the extra health from the buff (+30% with red adorn) than about some mit.</p><p>2. Except debuffs dont work that way. If they did, you'd make up a raid based on who can debuff mitigation the most and then one-shot the mobs. Debuffs work with the diminishing returns curve. That means counting all the bard debuffs etc that'll be on the mob anyway, increasing your debuff by 500 is inconsequential. In heroic content, your mit debuff fares better - if nobody else in the group has one, which just won't happen.</p><p>3. About DG and Harmony: I dunno about your gear, but if DG is up, adds aggroing you don't matter at all because... DG is up. They can beat on you. Fine. They won't kill you. And if, by your logic, you got aggro because you cast DG, then the tank has 20s to get back aggro. That should be enough. If not, you have enough warning to cast a reactive on yourself to survive even longer.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>mafoe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>1. All healers get this AA choice, and all healers get the same mitigation amount on the buff, and it doesnt stack either. So unless you are routinely solo-healing a mage group (which I find hard to believe), let the squishier healers take this AA because they need it (as you said yourself), we don't. Those squishies will be much happier about the extra health from the buff (+30% with red adorn) than about some mit.</p><p>So you're saying that two healers in the same group with this same AA will result in only one of the healers being able to apply this AA?  Are you sure it doesn't stack?  Plus if you're doing group instances, there usually isn't another healer anyway, not to mention in a group a single squishy mage death matters alot more than one who dies in a raid.</p><p>2. Except debuffs dont work that way. If they did, you'd make up a raid based on who can debuff mitigation the most and then one-shot the mobs. Debuffs work with the diminishing returns curve. That means counting all the bard debuffs etc that'll be on the mob anyway, increasing your debuff by 500 is inconsequential. In heroic content, your mit debuff fares better - if nobody else in the group has one, which just won't happen.</p><p>I can understand raids where there are 23 other people with potential physical mit debuffs, but in a group with 5 other people, if you're claiming this debuff has such a diminishing return that it's not worth getting, I'd like to see some data.</p><p>3. About DG and Harmony: I dunno about your gear, but if DG is up, adds aggroing you don't matter at all because... DG is up. They can beat on you. Fine. They won't kill you. And if, by your logic, you got aggro because you cast DG, then the tank has 20s to get back aggro. That should be enough. If not, you have enough warning to cast a reactive on yourself to survive even longer.</p><p>No, fatal aggro usually comes during the middle or end of a DG buff where adds pop or wander into range.  A tank doesn't have to be sleeping for a few new adds to run straight to you and start hitting you over the head without him having the time or spell up to taunt off.  I have level 2 DG and T3 armor, so it's not like I'm walking around in treasured paper gear, but sometimes I still get plastered.</p></blockquote>

[mafoe]

<p>It's fruitless to discuss AA choices based on heroic content. None of the heroic zones is hard enough to warrant specific AA choices... f.e. there are no trauma aoes in heroic content strong enough that would require or even make feasible the +mit AA. also, 99.99% of the mobs lose 10% HP while youre casting your mit debuff unless your PUG is awful. I gave the raiding perspective; if you dont raid, then some choices can differ, but i really doubt it</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>mafoe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's fruitless to discuss AA choices based on heroic content. None of the heroic zones is hard enough to warrant specific AA choices... f.e. there are no trauma aoes in heroic content strong enough that would require or even make feasible the +mit AA. also, 99.99% of the mobs lose 10% HP while youre casting your mit debuff unless your PUG is awful. I gave the raiding perspective; if you dont raid, then some choices can differ, but i really doubt it</p></blockquote><p>You mean you gave "a" raiding perspective.  I don't think you would be presumptuous enough to give "the" raiding perspective, whatever that would be.  And yes I do raid.  And if you put it that way, there aren't many raid zones which warrant "specific" AA choices.  Most raiders will pick mostly the same AA's regardless of where they are in the raid progression.  The rest is preference.  I have read you posting that after about 220 the choices start getting ambiguous, and I can see that as well.  So you making such strong statements about how this choice is so much suckier than the other sucky choices that are left leaves me wondering what you actually believe.</p><p>And I do not agree that it is the case that 99.99% of the mobs lose 10% HP while mit debuff is cast unless you decide to stop pressing buttons for some reason or decide that the mit debuff should be cast after you throw some generally ineffectual Templar DPS first.  I assume you are being hyperbolic here.  Unless you are soloing, boss mobs in group instances will come every 10-20 trash mobs, and that means 5-10% of the mobs will not die quickly.  And I don't care what gear a group is in, you are not going get a boss down 10% before you cast single reactive, ward and even the group reactive, before you cast Rebuke.  Unless you are talking mentored shard zones or something.  And even if 10% is gone by the time you cast mit debuff, there is still 90% left.  Finally if mit debuff is as useless as you claim, then the developers must REALLY be stupid because they gave you TWO useless opportunities to upgrade Rebuke.</p>

[mafoe]

I'm not saying the mit debuff is useless. Cast it if you want. Its a waste of time on most heroic content tho. What I said is that using 5 or even 10 of your AA points to improve it is mostly useless because of diminishing returns. And yes, the designers gave us two choices to improve the mit resist, but you do the name-calling for yourself instead of putting words in my mouth, thank you very much. And yes I said with 220 AA you can get most the good stuff, but that doesnt mean I should not comment on bad choices, ey? You're mostly arguing about semantics and meta-blabla that don't help anybody. Sticking to the topic would be helpful, not whether I am presumptuous by giving you good reasons why the above AA choices were questionable. If you dont want any comments, say so, otherwise take it or leave it. But first you ask me to explain, then you try to give me crap. Make up your mind.

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>mafoe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And yes, the designers gave us two choices to improve the mit resist, but you do the name-calling for yourself instead of putting words in my mouth, thank you very much.</p><p>Up to this point you have given your opinion, which is fine, I did ask for it.  But what you have not given is some data backing up what seems to be a rather strong opinion that seems more anecdotal than empirical.  That is what I have a problem with.  In fact, you sound so 'confident' (to put it politely) that you seem to be presenting a known fact rather than what is assuredly just your personal opinion.  Other Templar posters in eq2flames seem to be choosing Enhance Rebuke.  I see you have chosen Rebuked Prowess, something few other people put 5 AA's into.  I don't see how you could justify that this is somehow a better choice than Enhance Rebuke or could show that this small DPS debuff has any significant effect on the damage done by raid mobs.  Or that the 15 AA's you put into the DD and DOT spells is somehow going to significantly improve the virtually nonexistent DPS that Templars put out in a raid or, more importanly, appreciably decrease the time it takes to put down a mob..  I'm not saying that these choices of yours are necessarily bad per se, just a different personal preference amongst a couple dozen remaining AA's that don't do much more for the Templar.</p></blockquote>

[mafoe]

<p>People have parsed it etc, but its hard to do conclusively. However mitigation boni works like most stats with diminishing returns, so it's only logical to assume that - when already parses suggest this - mitigation debuffs are in fact affected by diminishing returns. It definitely isn't linear because then the raiding guilds would simply stack up mitigation debuffers, which they aren't.</p><p>There are much less dps debuffs in the game than mit debuffs. For that reason -dps is a good thing to have for a templar. It's not groundbreaking earth-shattering amazingness, but deffo better than mitigation.</p><p>The 15 AA in dps spells are the best investment for a templar so he can actually dps on easy mobs. If you're not dpsing on trash and easy named even as a templar, you are just being lazy. Those 15 AA points make it so that dpsing is much less annoying than without.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><span ><span style="color: #000000;"></span>People have parsed it etc, but its hard to do conclusively. However mitigation boni works like most stats with diminishing returns, so it's only logical to assume that - when already parses suggest this - mitigation debuffs are in fact affected by diminishing returns. It definitely isn't linear because then the raiding guilds would simply stack up mitigation debuffers, which they aren't.</span></p><p><span >"Stacking" mitigation debuffers has its own problems, mainly loss of balance, which even if they could do, they would not do, so the fact that raiding guilds do not stack debuffers is not directly relevant to whether you could do it or not.  But then again I'm not arguing against diminishing returns from multiple mit debuffs, just that you haven't shown any evidence whatsoever that this effect of diminishing returns is diminishing to the extent that mit debuff is "mostly useless", which is a rather subjective descriptor to begin with.  You just assume that since 1) there are "diminishing returns" to mit debuff, therefore 2) mit debuff enhancement is "mostly useless".  Not only that, you don't even present this as an untested opinion, but as cold, hard fact.</span></p><p><span >There are much less dps debuffs in the game than mit debuffs. For that reason -dps is a good thing to have for a templar. It's not groundbreaking earth-shattering amazingness, but deffo better than mitigation.</span></p><p><span >What have you done to demonstrate empirically that dps debuff is "deffo" better tha mit debuff?  By what standard are you measuring this?  Just because there are less dps debuffs doesn't mean that the Temp dps debuff deffo has more effect on the encounter than the mit debuff.  Once again you are making an assumption that 1) there are less dps debuffs out there, therefore 2) mit debuff is worse than dps debuff.  Prove that this is the case before you start using strong words like definitely and mostly useless.</span></p><p>The 15 AA in dps spells are the best investment for a templar so he can actually dps on easy mobs. If you're not dpsing on trash and easy named even as a templar, you are just being lazy. Those 15 AA points make it so that dpsing is much less annoying than without.</p><p>Attacking a straw man is a sign of weakness of thought.  Nowhere did I say you shouldn't dps in your spare time, so don't try to imply it.  I know you will say you used the word "if", but we both know the undercurrent of your statement, don't we?  If you're annoyed that your dps is for sh1te, and it is, then by all means go ahead and dump 15 AA's into dps.  But don't you sit there and tell the rest of us that we should feel as annoyed as you about your ineffectual dps enough to invest 15 AA's into making miniscule Templar dps only slightly less miniscule and tell us your choices are better than ours if we don't do the same as you.</p>

[mafoe]

<p>I'm getting tired of this crap. If you wanna look smart, argue with your kids and don't ramble about conjectures that are assumed by a big part of the raiding community. I do not need to prove anything to you. This is not a [Removed for Content] courthouse. Yes ofc you could look it up and make a list of all class debuffs to find out, in the end, that there are less dps debuffs than mit debuffs in the game, but hey, that would be work, and you're happy enough to just try to discredit, eh? You won't believe it until I post a list that 100% and indubitably proves it. You know what? Bugger yourself with a rusty fork. I will go no exactly zero ends to help you by doing anything that involved work for me. If you can't and won't take my strong opinion, then go out and find out for yourself instead of pestering me with your petty arguments.</p><p><span ><span>Demonstrate empirically? Are you crazy? I wouldn't so much as google for your behalf. The mitigation thing has most likely been "empirically demonstrated" somewhere, probably on flames, but I don't carry the links with me, you must forgive me!</span></span></p><p>And when I say "If you're not dpsing", I don't mean YOU. Hell, English isnt my first language, so don't go apecrap if I'm not Shakespeare.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p>I'm getting tired of this crap. If you wanna look smart, argue with your kids and don't ramble about conjectures that are assumed by a big part of the raiding community. I do not need to prove anything to you. This is not a [Removed for Content] courthouse. Yes ofc you could look it up and make a list of all class debuffs to find out, in the end, that there are less dps debuffs than mit debuffs in the game, but hey, that would be work, and you're happy enough to just try to discredit, eh? You won't believe it until I post a list that 100% and indubitably proves it. You know what? Bugger yourself with a rusty fork. I will go no exactly zero ends to help you by doing anything that involved work for me. If you can't and won't take my strong opinion, then go out and find out for yourself instead of pestering me with your petty arguments.</p><p>Anger is a sign of weakness of thought.  In the end, all this excess verbiage is just your roundabout way of saying you have absolutely nothing on which to substantiate your "strong opinion".  That's cool.  I wish you would have just came out with that in the very beginning as you were proclaiming from on high and adjudicating what is best and worst for all of us Templars out there.  I'll go for my mit debuff and you can add a few hundred more damage points per minute to those big bad mobs.</p>

[mafoe]

<p>Haha, go for it. "<span >Anger is a sign of weakness of thought", haha sure, Jedi master.</span></p><p>It's surprisingly funny how you diss my preference for dps so you can add a questionable extra mit debuff (for whose uselessness I can't cite any hard evidence, yet you take its usefulness for granted).</p><p>You have made up your mind sometime and now you will not consider alternatives. In this conversation, it's you who's biased and lacks openmindedness. If you were as rational and factual as you so desperately want to come across, you would pick neither mit debuff nor dps debuff, but instead would research it before making a choice.</p><p>Instead you try to portray me as "<span >proclaiming from on high". Nice try.</span></p><p>Dude, you're awful. You hide your cluelessness behind your rhetorical,  pseudoscientifical language. I gave you an advise, and all your petty mind can come up with is that without superhard evidence, you won't budge.</p><p>I wished I had known from the start that you'd be a waste of my time.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><span >It's surprisingly funny how you diss my preference for dps so you can add a questionable extra mit debuff (for whose uselessness I can't cite any hard evidence, yet you take its usefulness for granted).</span></p><p><span >Yes, it's questionable.  And I don't take its usefulness for granted.  I don't pretend unlike you that this is "deffo" a better choice than any of the other ones post 220.  And yet look at you.  You have the gall to admit that you can't cite any hard evidence but are still talking like you actually have a clue and can somehow tell me my choice is worse than yours.</span></p><p>You have made up your mind sometime and now you will not consider alternatives. In this conversation, it's you who's biased and lacks openmindedness. If you were as rational and factual as you so desperately want to come across, you would pick neither mit debuff nor dps debuff, but instead would research it before making a choice.</p><p>How the hell would someone like you know whether or not I had or had not done research already?  I asked you to justify your "strong opinion", but instead you can manage nothing more than a condescending answer completely bereft of evidence as if we should just take the words from your mouth like mana from heaven.  And good heavens if we should have any doubts about your baseless statements!  In that case your response is to employ insults, grandstanding, and more cluelessness in an attempt to hide the fact that you have no basis of any kind whatsover for your "strong" opinion.</p><p>Dude, you're awful. You hide your cluelessness behind your rhetorical,  pseudoscientifical language. I gave you an advise, and all your petty mind can come up with is that without superhard evidence, you won't budge.</p><p>Resorting to hyperbole is a sign of weakness of thought.  I asked for ANY evidence besides the words out of your mouth.  Do you have any?  No?  Then run back to eq2flames, lick your wounds and whine like a baby (like you're already doing) because you are so frustrated at your inability to fully express the natural tendency of your personality (to be degrading and insulting) on this forum without consequence.</p><p>I wished I had known from the start that you'd be a waste of my time.</p><p>Same here.</p>

[Dillin]

<p>Wow Meatwagon, way to prove that experienced Templars are wasting their time by replying to threads here.  And FYI, infering that someone is weak is in itself a sign of weakness.  Keep trying to elevate yourself when you've contributed nothing to this thread other then to question someone who has put a lot of time and effort into learning their class.</p><p>And is it just me or does Meatwagon remind me of arguing with Kiddricke once upon a time?</p>

[mafoe]

You have the gall to admit that you can't cite any hard evidence but are still talking like you actually have a clue and can somehow tell me my choice is worse than yours. It all comes down to this, doesnt it? People have parsed it, people have tested it, and there has been an established opinion for years that mitigation debuffs are affected by diminishing returns. I can't link "an irrefutable source" because I won't look for one (especially for a dirtbag such as you), or one you'd accept in any case. If it were easy to find, I'd just link it to make you look as dumb as you are in your stubborn, ridiculous quest for correctness. But all I saw is people stating it: mitigation debuffs are affected by diminishing returns. And I already know that you wouldn't take somebody else's word for it, even if said person was a lot more knowledgable about the game as you are. However, eq2 is not rocket sience or religion. Your refusal of taking somebody else's word is just plain idiotic. You're a waste of everybody's time, especially those coming here to find information.

[Arturoz]

<p>was it just me or did that meatwagon just keep repeating his "signs" statement over and over again like some fairy tale first sentence, "in a land far far away there lived a blah blah blah"..   It lost it effectiveness after the 2nd time reading it, really.</p><p>It has always been my understanding that the mit debuff is at best a "for solo/group content" choice, and by that i mean for a group of lower geared players that dont have that much dps or spell quality, if my memory serves me correctly.  I could be mistaken.  For me it makes perfect sense to place the points else where.  If i had to pick between the dps and the mit debuff it would be the dps debuff hands down as that directly effects how hard my job is to heal....</p><p>keep the information flowing Mafoe.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>mafoe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>You have the gall to admit that you can't cite any hard evidence but are still talking like you actually have a clue and can somehow tell me my choice is worse than yours. It all comes down to this, doesnt it? People have parsed it, people have tested it, and there has been an established opinion for years that mitigation debuffs are affected by diminishing returns. I can't link "an irrefutable source" because I won't look for one (especially for a dirtbag such as you), or one you'd accept in any case. If it were easy to find, I'd just link it to make you look as dumb as you are in your stubborn, ridiculous quest for correctness. But all I saw is people stating it: mitigation debuffs are affected by diminishing returns. And I already know that you wouldn't take somebody else's word for it, even if said person was a lot more knowledgable about the game as you are. However, eq2 is not rocket sience or religion. Your refusal of taking somebody else's word is just plain idiotic. You're a waste of everybody's time, especially those coming here to find information.</blockquote><p>Are you blind or stupid, or both?  I have already said that I do NOT argue that mit debuffs are affected by diminishing returns.  So your straw man idiocy is nothing more than a representation of your own pathetic lack of evidence.  Or maybe you should learn more English before you try and go toe to toe mudslinging with a native speaker.  What I have said is that you have nothing but the peanuts out of your piehole to show that the Templar mit debuff is more useless than your <strong>15</strong> entire points dumped into Templar mosquito bite DPS or that the DPS debuff somehow significantly impacts the raid more than the mit debuff.  The fact is you don't have a <strong>single [Removed for Content] clue</strong> that either of these are true.  The parses you dishonestly refer to deal with the diminishing returns of the mit debuff, NOT with whether your pathetic DPS or your DPS debuff takes down a mob faster or safer than the mit debuff even in the context of diminishing returns.  So in spite of you bringing your fellow flamers to this site to spout useless drivel on your behalf, you are STILL unable to disguise the fact that you have absolutely NOTHING to show for your "strong" opinion, which is as useful as an bunghole on an elbow.</p>

[mafoe]

Wow, you're seriously an epic piece of [Removed for Content], with a similar IQ to boot. Not only do you insult me for my English, which is amazing by itself, you also admit that the entire centerpiece of your argumentation (the diminishing returns on the mit debuff) is just a piece of nonsense, and still you don't see how badly you just burned yourself? You have to be very 'special' to not understand that there are less dps debuffs in the game than mit debuffs, and why that's the reason to take the dps debuff over enhancing your mit debuff. The so-called templar mosquito bite dps easily goes up to 10k in a raid. Of course only when distributing AA points with a bit of brain, but that's hard to expect from you, I guess. You also fail to grasp that generally speaking, reducing the mob's dps output is more important than to marginally improve raid dps, yet you are opposed to spend points on your own dps and thus raid dps. Kinda contradictory, but hey, I guess you have a plan. I can see you in a heroic group, standing there, casting your [Removed for Content] mit debuff, keeping up your reactives, touching yourself thinking 'oh my god, I just boosted the group's dps sooo much', while other templars would happily churn out 7k with their dps spells. And I can assure you, my participation in this thread is more useful than any of the crap you posted. It's obvious why you stick to the official forums - because you'd be laughed off eq2flames within an hour.

[EQPrime]

<p><cite>Meatwaggon wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>mafoe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>You have the gall to admit that you can't cite any hard evidence but are still talking like you actually have a clue and can somehow tell me my choice is worse than yours. It all comes down to this, doesnt it? People have parsed it, people have tested it, and there has been an established opinion for years that mitigation debuffs are affected by diminishing returns. I can't link "an irrefutable source" because I won't look for one (especially for a dirtbag such as you), or one you'd accept in any case. If it were easy to find, I'd just link it to make you look as dumb as you are in your stubborn, ridiculous quest for correctness. But all I saw is people stating it: mitigation debuffs are affected by diminishing returns. And I already know that you wouldn't take somebody else's word for it, even if said person was a lot more knowledgable about the game as you are. However, eq2 is not rocket sience or religion. Your refusal of taking somebody else's word is just plain idiotic. You're a waste of everybody's time, especially those coming here to find information.</blockquote><p>Are you blind or stupid, or both?  I have already said that I do NOT argue that mit debuffs are affected by diminishing returns.  So your straw man idiocy is nothing more than a representation of your own pathetic lack of evidence.  Or maybe you should learn more English before you try and go toe to toe mudslinging with a native speaker.  What I have said is that you have nothing but the peanuts out of your piehole to show that the Templar mit debuff is more useless than your <strong>15</strong> entire points dumped into Templar mosquito bite DPS or that the DPS debuff somehow significantly impacts the raid more than the mit debuff.  The fact is you don't have a <strong>single [Removed for Content] clue</strong> that either of these are true.  The parses you dishonestly refer to deal with the diminishing returns of the mit debuff, NOT with whether your pathetic DPS or your DPS debuff takes down a mob faster or safer than the mit debuff even in the context of diminishing returns.  So in spite of you bringing your fellow flamers to this site to spout useless drivel on your behalf, you are STILL unable to disguise the fact that you have absolutely NOTHING to show for your "strong" opinion, which is as useful as an bunghole on an elbow.</p></blockquote><p>You poke fun at his English and then use phrases like, "you have nothing but the peanuts out of your piehole" and "which is as useful as an bunghole on an elbow".  Come on, nobody says nonsense like that.  I love when you poke fun at his "excess verbiage" in one of your wall-of-text posts.</p><p>The OP asked for a "best healing" AA spec.  You can argue that you shouldn't put points in nukes if you're looking for best healing and that's fine, but I don't see how you can think that putting points into the mit debuff is going to help your healing (and damage prevention) more than putting points into the DPS debuff.  Unless the fight is a DPS-check you're generally going to get better survivability in lowering the mob's damage output rather than lower the mob's mit by a couple of hundred.</p><p>I don't necessarily agree with all of Mafoe's thoughts on AA's, but his arguments for and against the abilities seem accurate for the most part.  Personally I like steadfast resolve over the alternatives and I believe he likes boosting Holy Shield instead.  Other than that my general spec is very similar to his.  You question everything he says, yet include the statement, "I don't have ACT to confirm this".  You have offered nothing to show that he is incorrect, and it appears that you haven't put in any effort at all to do any research to actually provide any evidence.  Your posts come off as little more than attepmts at trolling.</p><p>Also, if you need Harmony more than once every 5 minutes you either need a new tank or you need to have better awareness of your surroundings.  If your DPS resembles the damage produced by a mosquito bite then you most likely need to learn how to DPS.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p>"Wow, you're seriously an epic piece of [Removed for Content], with a similar IQ to boot. Not only do you insult me for my English, which is amazing by itself, you also admit that the entire centerpiece of your argumentation (the diminishing returns on the mit debuff) is just a piece of nonsense, and still you don't see how badly you just burned yourself?"</p><p>A <a href="mailto:ret@rd">ret@rd</a> like you is talking about IQ with me.  That's rich.  Maybe you can tease out your <a href="mailto:ret@rd's">ret@rd's</a> logic and explain to me how I somehow admitted that the centerpiece of my argumentation is just a piece of nonsense and how I somehow badly burned myself.  Thrill me with your nonexistent acumen.</p><p>"You have to be very 'special' to not understand that there are less dps debuffs in the game than mit debuffs, and why that's the reason to take the dps debuff over enhancing your mit debuff."</p><p>You are obviously stupid, but not stupid enough to be intellectually dishonest about your argumentation.  ONE MORE TIME FOR THE SLOW OF MIND, you have no evidence, not a single piece, of any kind, whatsoever, to demonstrate that the dps debuff is significantly more effective than the mit debuff, regardless of diminishing returns of the mit debuff.  While I myself don't argue that the mit debuff is necessarily better than the DPS debuff or the 15 AA's dumped into DPS itself, you, on account of you being 1) a pr1ck 2) without a clue, have made a much stronger argument (and thus more difficult to demonstrate), that the dps debuff is DEFINITELY better than the mit debuff.  Well if it were so obvious how come I see you as the being the only genius that has chosen this enhancement?  How come I don't see a chorus of agreement from your fellow flaming butt buddies that the DPS debuff is the leet choice?</p><p>"The so-called templar mosquito bite dps easily goes up to 10k in a raid. Of course only when distributing AA points with a bit of brain, but that's hard to expect from you, I guess."</p><p>If you as a Templar are racking up 10K in a parse, then 1 of 2 things are true.  Either you are not doing your real job, or the real DPSers in the raid are parsing much much higher than that.  Templars and Wardens usually compete for last place in a DPS parse if the rest of the people in the raid are worth their salt and doing their jobs.  And I know you wear T4 gear, so please don't sell me any bullsh1t about being Avatar leet or other such nonsense.</p><p>"You also fail to grasp that generally speaking, reducing the mob's dps output is more important than to marginally improve raid dps, yet you are opposed to spend points on your own dps and thus raid dps. Kinda contradictory, but hey, I guess you have a plan."</p><p>Again, stupidity at its best.  First, if it were so obvious that the <strong>TEMPLAR'S</strong> DPS debuff were so obviously more important than his mit debuff, people would be flocking to that Rebuked Prowess.  As far as I can tell, YOU ARE ALONE in this choice.  Second, a desire to improve raid DPS does not mean I should feel obligated to improve my DD's and DOT's.  Mit debuff affects every single meleer in the raid for only 5 AA's, any of whom will out-DPS me by a wide margin.  Enhancing my own DPS affects no one but MYSELF and requires 15 AA's (at least in your spec).  Obviously you lack the brainpower to make this simple calculation, but hey, I'm actually not surprised at this point.</p><p>"I can see you in a heroic group, standing there, casting your [Removed for Content] mit debuff, keeping up your reactives, touching yourself thinking 'oh my god, I just boosted the group's dps sooo much', while other templars would happily churn out 7k with their dps spells."</p><p>Is it 7K or 10K, <a href="mailto:ret@rd">ret@rd</a>?  Make up your mind FFS.  If you're going to be flexible why not reach for the stars and claim 50K?  At least that way I would know for sure you are smoking your crack pipe a little too often.  At least I don't touch myself saying "OMG OMG OMG I just critted Divine Strike!  OMG OMG OMG I just DOTed that bastage of a mob.  OMG intel debuff AND DOT!  OMG I am a DPS GOD!"  Get a [Removed for Content] clue about your role in the eq2 universe and stopping jizzing about your DPS.  BTW I don't see other Templars raid-specced with that many DPS AA's either.  Most people would take a hint from that fact.  But clearly you're "special".</p><p>"And I can assure you, my participation in this thread is more useful than any of the crap you posted. It's obvious why you stick to the official forums - because you'd be laughed off eq2flames within an hour."</p><p>I avoid eq2flames to avoid degenerate a-holes with wretched personalities like you who thrive on flaming others.  You have done a very good job of turning this thread into a mudslinging fest.  If that poster in the other thread were more inclined to be less tolerant towards your loser personality, she could have allowed that thread to degenerate into the sh1tfest that this thread has become as well.  She is obviously a higher person than either of us.  I personally cannot countinence both stupidity and arrogance in the same person, which is why you have been getting the back of my hand ever since you started with the insults, which was probably inevitable given the kind of sh1ttbag you are.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p>"You poke fun at his English and then use phrases like, "you have nothing but the peanuts out of your piehole" and "which is as useful as an bunghole on an elbow".  Come on, nobody says nonsense like that.  I love when you poke fun at his "excess verbiage" in one of your wall-of-text posts."</p><p>Hey einstein, get a clue.  The language filters prevented the use of certain words.  If you can't figure that out, you don't deserve to comment on this.  Regarding the second point, a [Removed for Content] could make 1 single statement that takes a paragraph to explain why it's moronic. </p><p>"The OP asked for a "best healing" AA spec.  You can argue that you shouldn't put points in nukes if you're looking for best healing and that's fine, but I don't see how you can think that putting points into the mit debuff is going to help your healing (and damage prevention) more than putting points into the DPS debuff."</p><p>The whole point of a Templar raid spec is what AA's will take a mob down faster and safer for the least amount of AA's spent.  15 entire AA's into DPS personally wouldn't be my first thought towards that end.</p><p>"Unless the fight is a DPS-check you're generally going to get better survivability in lowering the mob's damage output rather than lower the mob's mit by a couple of hundred."</p><p>Again, you're just making a statement.  How do you even know this is true?  How do you know how many hundred mit points are dropped?  Rebuke is actually 2,000+.  You want to say diminishing returns?  Ok then, tell me how much.  Do you even know?  Does anybody?  You could go through your entire eq2 career thinking one thing without ever knowing that it was just dead wrong.  You are making the same mistake mafool is making, claiming something you have no evidence for.  I myself don't claim that the mit debuff is definitely better than the DPS debuff (which in the description itself already says "SMALL"), it's just my own preference.  I have said this already several times.</p><p>"I don't necessarily agree with all of Mafoe's thoughts on AA's, but his arguments for and against the abilities seem accurate for the most part.  Personally I like steadfast resolve over the alternatives and I believe he likes boosting Holy Shield instead.  Other than that my general spec is very similar to his."</p><p>That's neither here nor there.  Most of any Templar's spec will be "very similar" to any other's spec.  We are talking about the last 20, maybe 30 AA points out of 250.  IMO these last points don't contribute very much more to a Templar's abilities, but Mafoe has a "strong" opinion about these that he lacks evidence for.  But it's strong, so it must count for something.  Or not.</p><p>"You question everything he says, yet include the statement, "I don't have ACT to confirm this".  You have offered nothing to show that he is incorrect, and it appears that you haven't put in any effort at all to do any research to actually provide any evidence.  Your posts come off as little more than attepmts at trolling."</p><p>Apparently you lack the same sense of logic that he does.  I don't make any positive claims, that one spec is <strong>definitely</strong> better than the other.  He does.  In statistics my stance is the null hypothesis.</p><p>"Also, if you need Harmony more than once every 5 minutes you either need a new tank or you need to have better awareness of your surroundings. </p><p>Generally I don't need Harmony every 5 minutes.  But then again, I like to have that 2.5 minute margin just in case.  I don't like to die.  It goes back to my own point that the last couple dozen AA's don't have many AA's that are definitively better than others.  My personal preference is to avoid death, repair bills, and AA debt as much as possible.  I die enough in raids already.  I don't need more debt grouping.  Hence, Harmony.  This is not a difficult concept.</p><p>"If your DPS resembles the damage produced by a mosquito bite then you most likely need to learn how to DPS."</p><p>That's a <a href="mailto:ret@rded">ret@rded</a> statement.  Clearly this was hyperbole meant to illustrate the fact that Templar DPS is lower than most other classes.  If you want to use that as an opportunity to take a pathetic dig, that says more about you than it does about me.</p>

[Kizee]

<p>I am LOLing right now.</p><p>This proves that red names or even mods never come to this section. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/97ada74b88049a6d50a6ed40898a03d7.gif" border="0" /></p>

[Tantr]

<p>Pretty long rant just to explain why this person sucks at this game. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" /></p>

[Rick777]

<p>I've only raided TSO, have done about 75% progression on my old toons.  I found there were 2 types of situations, a) the fight was easy and it didn't matter if I DPSed or not, but it was fun to do.  b) the fight was difficult and instead of DPSing if I found my group at full health and nothing to do I would spot heal and spot cure other groups to make sure the entire raid force was strong.  I found that by helping out other groups like this in difficult fights I had much less time to DPS.  Sure in a perfect world every healer in every group in the raid would be perfect, but we don't live in a perfect world and sometimes cross raid heals/cures save the day.  I don't begrudge the DPS healers from doing their thing, and I'll certainly throw my DPS out there when it makes sense, but I'd much rather have my power in reserve and use it for true emergencies or for cross raid cures/heals.   Now I haven't raided in SF at all so maybe things have changed, I'll have to wait and see until I get to that point.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p>Rick, couldn't agree with you more.  DPSing is the last thing a Templar should be thinking about during a fight after heals, buffs, debuffs, and cures.  If one has the luxury of both time and mana, by all means throw some nukes, but people who get off on thinking they are "DPS healers" should get a clue and pick another class.  Templar is probably the worst possible choice for that particular fetish.  End of story.</p>

[Tantr]

<p>You're wrong.</p><p>And for a native speaker, your grammar is awful.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p>That's all you have to say, that my grammar is awful?  Care to point out where my grammar is awful, exactly, or are you just throwing that out there because you don't have a f#cking clue what else to say but you just know you want to say something insulting?  You're just like the other <a href="mailto:ret@rds">ret@rds</a>, who think they are the [Removed for Content] but don't have anything to back themselves up.  Do people a favor and [Removed for Content].</p>

[Tantr]

<p>1) Mitigation buffs do not stack.</p><p>2)A raid/group can sustain a fully debuffed mob, regarding physical mitigation, with using different combinations of those spells:</p><p>-Devouring Mist</p><p>-Enfeeblement</p><p>-Condemn</p><p>-Clara's Chaotic Cacophony</p><p>-Kidney Stab</p><p>-Torture</p><p>-Dispatch</p><p>A raid can sustain a mob debuffed up to a factor of 81 DPS, with using all of the following spells :</p><p>-Atrophy</p><p>-Lamenting Soul</p><p>-Sever</p><p>-Umbral Trap</p><p>Your request for proof is idiotic, considering the fact that mafoe simply expressed the well-known facts amongst competent EQ2 players. Providing the evidence for every cerebrally underdeveloped simian is simply a tedious and completely pointless action.</p><p>3) Trying to explain the ridiculous use of AA in Harmony, by saying that it saves your life when you get aggro, simply makes you look bad. Even if your tanks are terrible enough to lose aggro to your inconsequential heals, you're just a bad player if you can not heal yourself until the said tanks gain hate.</p><p>4)</p><p>Lozonn Nobuna: (00:2<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" /> | 2877377 | 102764 | [Denyzen-Harm Touch-41523]Raizor | 800059 | 28574Dareik | 772286 | 27582Denyzen | 557597 | 19914Starkiss | 329616 | 11772Wookin | 305003 | 10893Tantras | 112816 | 4029</p><p>28 seconds duration. Rebuke would have had to be cast within 2.8 seconds from the beginning of the fight, to account for landing within 10% of the damage already dealt.</p><p>I am capped at casting speed:</p><p>-Casting time of Vital Intercession is 1.0 second.</p><p>-Casting time of Repent is 1.25 seconds.</p><p>-Casting time of Holy Intercession is 2.5 seconds.</p><p>-Casting time for Rebuke is 0.75seconds.</p><p>With a recovery time reduction of 33%, you have 6.5 seconds by the time the spell lands. Taking for the sake of argument that the mob can not resist the spell, you have the mob at around 77% health.</p><p>Apparently you can get it below 90% before Rebuke lands~!</p><p>5) omg~!</p><p>energetic malevolence: (00:2<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" /> | 10498093 | 374932 | [Talduke-Fusion-151515]etc</p><p>etc</p><p>etc</p><p>Tantras | 408881 | 14603</p><p>etc</p><p>etc</p><p>etc</p><p>6) a) Your understanding of punctuation is horrible. b) Please do not use words you do not understand.</p><p>P.S.1 For the record, I disagree with mafoe's opinion regarding Steadfast Resolve.</p><p>P.S.2 You don't have even a remotely working understanding of how mitigation debuffs work.</p><p>P.S.3 You're a horrible player.</p><p>P.S.4 <a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=476101" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=476101</a></p><p>Edited: Ask for the actual numbers regarding the debuffs, please. I sense you'll not go back to being an anonymous nobody, until I throw them in your pathetic little face.</p>

[Rick777]

<p><cite>Tantras@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>A raid can sustain a mob debuffed up to a factor of 81 DPS, with using all of the following spells :</p><p>-Atrophy</p><p>-Lamenting Soul</p><p>-Sever</p><p>-Umbral Trap</p></blockquote><p>Does that mean Templars shouldn't bother with the DPS debuff AA points?</p>

[Hene]

<p>Lamenting soul + Umbral trap is around -57.7 DPS mod</p><p>Also keep in mind, that > 50 DPS mod debuff only helps on mobs with inherent DPS self-buffs (just something to consider; I don't know if all raid mobs have such buffs or not, and/or to what extent...)</p>

[Hene]

<p>tbh, I don't think you're ranting enough</p>

[Laiina]

<p><cite>Hene wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>tbh, I don't think you're ranting enough</p></blockquote><p>I have to agree. I just read through 3 pages of absolute "I am smarter than you" crap, and got absolutely no useful information about Templar AA's.</p><p>The only real info I got was that far too many people cannot seem to control their emotions.</p>

[EQPrime]

<p>You're asking for specifics as to why a DPS debuff is better in a healing/defensive spec than a mit debuff boost.  It just shows you don't know the basic mechanics behind how the game works.</p><p>In regards to your comment about mudslinging, I just have to laugh.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>Uguv@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You're asking for specifics as to why a DPS debuff is better in a healing/defensive spec than a mit debuff boost.  It just shows you don't know the basic mechanics behind how the game works.</p><p>In regards to your comment about mudslinging, I just have to laugh.</p></blockquote><p>And what have you done to demonstrate that this is the case besides idiotically [Removed for Content] a list of spells?  NOTHING.  And you know it.  And so does everyone else.  Now $TFU thanks.</p>

[Kiara]

<p>I've cleaned this up.</p><p>Let's have no more of that nonsense, if you please.</p>

[mafoe]

You missed some of meatwaggon's kibosh. Anyway. If you're raiding, take the dps debuff over the mit debuff.

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>mafoe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>You missed some of meatwaggon's kibosh. Anyway. If you're raiding, take the dps debuff over the mit debuff.</blockquote><p>LOL, after 3 pages of you utterly FAILing to demonstrate that dps debuff is better than mit debuff and more than person disagreeing with you in the process, you still have the gall to sneak in back here and deposit a final little stool.</p>

[mafoe]

You're delusional. At best.

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>mafoe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>You're delusional. At best.</blockquote><p>Okay, Gomer Pyle, let's recap.  Your one and only assertion for choosing DPS debuff over mit debuff was that there were more mit debuffs out there than DPS debuffs, which in actuality means nothing.  Hene pointed out that DPS debuff over 50 was useless unless the mob had self DPS buffs and that only two DPS debuffs (Lamenting soul + Umbral trap) are just by themselves enough to drive DPS debuff to over 50.  Uguv stated that he believed DPS and mit debuffs were a wash.  He thought tantras was trying to claim the same thing, but in fact nobody including tantras knows that tantras was trying to claim.  And in ALL of this maelstrom of mudslinging you STILL have got SQUAT for empiric evidence to show that DPS debuff is better than mit debuff in actual gameplay, but yet you still try to assert this ludicrous claim based on your "strong" opinion.  Well guess what?  Onion breath is also strong.</p>

[mafoe]

<p>Let's recap: Your posts are useless spiel.</p>

[Meatwaggon]

<p><cite>mafoe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Let's recap: Your posts are useless spiel.</p></blockquote><p>Your idiotic one liners betray your realization that you've utterly, totally, completely LOST this thread.  You can leave now.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>