Where is the Templar class to go now, with EQUAL HEALING and almost nothing else?

[quetzaqotl]

K will do anth can see that it gets a bit irritating heh shall try to control myself a little more it's  just that some people keep repeating themselves so i have to repeat the point I made in the hope the person finally gets it.

But yeah couldve done it in a pm but then the exaggeration of mr mak would just be there "infecting" more people, but ok I will back off a little depending on what other people post

 

to cow below me:

Cow wrote:

The focus on Furies is really easy to explain. Follow this thought.

Furies are the BEST Healer out there now, not by a little bit but by a lot. Not just in terms of healing but in every aspect of playing a healer including damage et al.

Like before CU 13 when every healer was compared to a Templar. See thats why you are compared to. Understand?

 

The question is do you understand Cow? what little birdy told you that furies are the best healer? did you check out what other healers have before you made a statement like that?

How do shamans play compared to clerics or maybe even templars compared to inquisitors?

Comparing furies now with templars before cu is rediculous.

 

Message Edited by quetzaqotl on 11-28-2005 10:43 AM

Message Edited by quetzaqotl on 11-28-2005 10:45 AM

[Cowdenic]

---

quetzaqotl wrote:

So caeth at your lvl, lvl 46 your fury heals just as good as your templar?

And you make it sound that pre cu all was balanced as furies did more dmg than templars but we got to heal for less?

SO you were ok with how the cards were then eh?

People picking up furies is just because furies are now considered the fun class we do dmg and heal, but really do you know how mystics/defilers/inqs/wardens are balanced against your templar? (yeah yeah I hear the "roll another healer yourself" comming, lol I wont (have enough alts as it is), but you must agree all this focus on furies is a bit one sided dont you think?).

All this focus on furies is a bit strange as noone ever mentioned another healing class vs templars its even more strange that noone tried to compare themselves to the other cleric inquisitors (at least not on these boards).

Saying your lvl 46 fury heals just as good as a templar could, well I dont believe that if you go and search for easy content yes a furies'heals at that lvl will suffice, but clearly at that lvl fury healing is in the lowest tier of any healer around. 

Message Edited by quetzaqotl on 11-28-2005 04:51 AM

---

The focus on Furies is really easy to explain. Follow this thought.

Furies are the BEST Healer out there now, not by a little bit but by a lot. Not just in terms of healing but in every aspect of playing a healer including damage et al.

Like before CU 13 when every healer was compared to a Templar. See thats why you are compared to. Understand?

[Mabes]

I'll jump in by saying that soloing with my templar is about as enjoyable as reading all of this flaming.  Give us DPS!

[Bad_Mojo]

---

bigmak2010 wrote:

Agreed.  The two spells especially make the "Best Healer" arguement moot.  Best healer is a Fury at 58+ -- prior to that it's atleast debatable.

Now -- give the Templars Fury DPS and we'll call it a day.  That is -- if you actually want balance?  If it's OK for Fury to have Templar and better then Templar healing at LU13+ why can't Templar get Fury DPS at LU13+... hmmmm?????  You picked the Fury to DPS and get healing right?  Guess what -- many players picked Templar to be dedicated healer.  We all heal the same (Furies heal better) now where the hell is the balance?  Huh?

---

Since you guys never seem to want to discuss numbers, I'm going to do your homework for you.  I've said before I think Temp's need a damage boost, and now I'm going to show you why.

I'm going to borrow these posts from the priest forum - My notes are in the wierd yellow/green color

I added averages to the lists, makes it easier to assess what's going on.

---

NG23985_01 wrote:  <--- Thanks NG, for all the legwork!

I have noticed that after the CU, many priests are complaining that they dont do enough DPS, or their DPS is inferior to a different Priest class, so I've taken it upon myself to calculate some numbers for sub-class comparison between the priests. Please keep this post nice! Please no flaming, bickering, ect.

 

All of these damage numbers are taken from T6 damage spells, with 225 int, all spells being of Adept 1 quality. The damage does NOT include bonuses like Mystic's bonus to Nightbloods, or Templar's bonus to Undead. Also, in instances where a DoT has a longer duration than its recast time, I assumed that the user would let the DoT wear off first, before recasting it. In practice, spells seldom land for their minimum, or their maximum exactly - so the real DPS and Efficiency will fall somewhere in between the min and the max listed here.

Minimum Damage = lowest possible hit (for DoTs, assuming it lasts the whole duration)
Maximum Damage = highest possible hit

Minimum DPS = least-DPS possible, assuming no resists, if the spell in question is chain-cast (for DoTs, assuming they last the whole duration)

Maximum DPS = highest possible DPS, assuming no resists, if the spell in question is chain-cast (for DoTs, assuming they last the whole duration)

Minimum Efficiency = Damageower ratio, for the lowest possible total-damage
Maximum Efficiency = Damageower ratio, for the highest possible total-damage

Key:

Class: Spell : Min. Damage-Max. Damage ; Min. DPS-Max. DPS ; Min. Efficiency-Max. Efficiency

Note: DoTs that have a Duration greater than their Recast time are coloured Blue - in theory, you could keep these DoTs running on multiple creatures at once. Other DoTs have a duration to match exactly their recast time, and cannot be cast on multiple monsters at once.

Archetype Spell Line

Fury: Killing Swarm: 500-610 ; 38.46-46.92 (51.3; 6.17-7.53 (6.85)
Warden: Winter's Sting: 400-489 ; 80-97.8 (88.9); 4.93-6.03 (5.4

Mystic: Wrath of the Grey: 300-356 ; 60-71.2 (65.6); 4.22-5.01 (4.62)

Defiler: Ruinous Anathema: 300-356 ; 60-71.2 (65.6); 4.22-5.01 (4.62)

Templar: Judging Smite: 300-356 ; 60-71.2 (65.6); 4.22-5.01 (4.62)

Inquisitor: Ruthless Invocation: 300-356 ; 60-71.2 (65.6); 4.22-5.01 (4.62)

 

DPS Ranking:

Warden

Mystic - Defiler - Templar - Inquisitor

Fury

 

Efficiency Ranking:

Fury

Warden

Mystic - Defiler - Templar - Inquisitor

Observations: Furies have the least DPS with this spell line, but the greatest efficiency. Wardens have the best DPS/second best efficiency. Everybody else tied with 3rd place.

 

Furies have the *least* DPS in this line but are very mana efficient (sadly, this isn't something we see often), Warden's have the most DPS and are second only to Furies in efficiency.  Templars are TIED with the Mystic, Defiler, and Inquisitor exactly.  These numbers could be broadened a bit I think across all the classes, to create more of an overlap in the ranges.

Class Spell Line

Fury: Waterspout: 655-800 ; 65.5-80 (72.75); 6.68-8.16 (7.42)
Warden: Hoarfrost: 525-642 ; 52.5-64.2 (58.35); 5.35-6.55 (5.95)

Mystic: Fevered Pox: 819 ; 32.76 ; 7.58

Defiler: Infestation: 784 ; 31.36 ; 10.59

Templar: Consecrated Strike: 350-428 ; 35-42.8 (38.9); 4.72-5.78 (5.25)

Inquisitor: Scourge: 525-644 ; 21-25.76 (23.3; 7.09-8.7 (7.9)

 

DPS Ranking:

Fury

Warden

Templar

Mystic

Defiler

Inquisitor

 

Efficiency Ranking:

Defiler

Inquisitor

Mystic

Fury

Warden

Templar

 

Observations: Defiler has the best efficiency, by far, and will likely do a little more damage than what is listed due to the fact that Infestation is a WIS (resistance) debuff. Consecrated Strike (Templar) seems to be underpowered a bit, both in DPS and Efficiency. Scourge (Inquisitor) also looks to need a tiny boost.

 

For this line of spells, the Templar is rock bottom in efficiency, though they do outdo the Inquisitor, Defiler, and Mystic in DPS.  I am all for a boost to Consecrated Strike - As a DD, it's deplorable.  Notice however that Defilers and Mystics are all more efficient than the Fury's average efficiency of 7.42.... And Inquisitors are more efficient than Furies as well.  Furies do have the top DPS spot however, but it's a DoT.

 

Subclass Spell Line
Fury: Bolt of Storms: 834-1390 ; 46.33-77.22 (61.7; 4.38-7.31 (5.85)
Warden: Wintry Cold: 875-1071 ; 35-42.84 (38.92); 7.35-9 (8.175)
Mystic: Arctic Flames: 730-890 ; 52.14-63.57 (57.86); 6.13-7.47 (6.

Defiler: Fulginous Tendril: 710-865 ; 39.44-48.05 (43.75); 5.96-7.26 (6.61)

Templar: Warring Conviction: 624-763 ; 34.66-42.38 (38.52); 5.24-6.41 (5.83)

Inquisitor: Purifying Flames: 710-865 ; 39.44-48.05 (43.75); 5.96-7.26 (6.61)

 

DPS Ranking:

Fury

Mystic

Defiler - Inquisitor

Warden

Templar

 

Efficiency Ranking:

Warden

Mystic

Defiler - Inquisitor

Fury

Templar

 

Efficiency:

This is one of our big damage spells.  When it hits hard, it hits HARD.  Thanks to the extremely wide range of damage however, when it hits soft our efficiency is outdone by Wardens, Mystics, Defilers, Inquisitors, and yes, even Templars.  Even at our peak, if we get that solid hit for 1390 damage, we are still less effecient than Wardens.  I averaged out the efficiency of these spells, and noticed that we rank RIGHT THERE with Templars!

 

DPS:

Furies are indeed the highest DPS, just squeaking in above Mystics.  Pair this with the efficiency however and you'll see that we pay for our damage with increased power costs.

 

Now, I'll be honest, I'm not sure how Templars ended up with the lowest DPS AND efficiency for this line, but if I were you guys I'd post up about it in the SA&CA forum.  There's no way that's right.  Either you need a power cost decrease to increase efficiency, or a damage boost... unless they think the x2 damage to undead is making up for it, but if that's the case I'd complain anyway.

 

Observations: Fury has the greatest damage variance (how random it is). Fury also has the lowest efficiency in this type of spell. In light of DPS, its fairly even, except for Warden being a little low compared to the others, although Wintry Cold is also an elemental debuff, so will likely hit a tiny bit harder than listed here. Warring Conviction (Templar) is a little weaker than it should be, also.

I hope this information has provided some insight into the realities of Priest DPS. Numerically it seems to be reasonably balanced. It's not perfect, granted, and if *I* were a spell editor, I'd give Templars and Inquisitors a little more DPS, give Furies a little less damage variance, and a little more efficiency all across the board.

 

My final take?  Yes Templars need some work in a few areas.  But constantly crying about Furies is pointless.  Look at the breakdown...  Furies are top DPS in two of these lines (and one of those is a DoT), but make up for it in poor efficiency (not to mention while we are leaps and bounds ahead of Temp's, there are classes nipping at our heels in both).

 

If I were Templars, I would take this information and make a thread in the SA&CA forum, asking why Warring Conviction is bringing you in last in both DPS and efficiency.  Anyone else find it odd that Inquisitors and Defilers are equal in there?  Might want to bring up in general why there are classes where DPS/efficiency is so borked.  Can't have it both ways, either you are doing damage and burning mana like it's going out of style (one solo blue will take me down to below half power for example), or you are coming out of fights with a near full bar of power though it took you longer to finish (maybe balanced by less downtime).  Overall, I'd like to see the Dev's take a look at Dmg/pwr altogether, there's some shenanigans going on...

 

---

---

NG23985_01 wrote:

Please refer to my other post for Single-Target T6 Priest DPS, however, I will also attempt to account for the secondary effects that they have in THIS post.

 

First Post:
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=11&message.id=4644

 

Here's the AE Data following the same rules.

 

All of these spells are Adept 1, with 225 intelligence EXCEPT Templar's Blaze of Faith. Sorry, I couldn't find a link. Instead, it is listed as Apprentice 4.

 

Class: Spell: Min-Max Dam (per target), Min-Max DPS (per target), Min-Max Efficiency (per target)

 

Fury: Starnova: 1224-1496 ; 51-62.33 (56.67); 3.44-4.21(3.83)

Warden: Winds of Arctic Cold: 714-843 ; 37.57-44.36 (40.97); 4.3-5.07 (4.69)
Mystic: Wrath of the Ancients: 521 ; 34.73 ; 3.13
Defiler: Caliginous Corruption: (Need a defiler to tell me the Duration on this line of DoT before i can calculate it! Sorry!)
Templar: Blaze of Faith: 397 ; 20.89 ; 2.87
Inquisitor: Litany of Agony: 357-436 ; 19.83-24.22 (22.03); 2.58-3.15 (2.87)

 

Not going to comment too much here since the Templar spell listed is only App4.  I can see where there can be some work upwards in respect to Mystics and Inquisitors however.

 

At some point, I will try to find a link to Defiler's "Maelstrom of Decay", an additional AE that they have.

 

Observations on the AE's:
On paper, Fury's AE seems to have a lot of DPS, however it has the longest casting time. It's very difficult to get a 4 second cast time AE off with several monsters beating on you. Warden has the best Efficiency. Mystic's damage could be improved a little, perhaps by reducing the recast by 1 or 2 seconds, or increasing the damage a bit. (Defiler, cant calculate yet) Templar's is Apprentice 4, so the Adept 1 is slightly more than the numbers above. Both Templar and Inquisitor need a little stronger and more efficiency in their AE's. I dont play a Cleric, but I dont feel threatened when one of my "competing" priest classes gets a little boost, especially when its one they need.

~

Now for Observations on the secondary effects of the Single-Target damage spells in my other post.

Fury: Killing Swarm: Reduces the victim's "Defense" skill. Theoretically, melee will hit the victim harder while under the effect of this spell.
Warden: Winter's Sting: No real bonus, other than it hits harder than the other standard "Smite" spells.

Mystic: Wrath of the Grey: Secondary Effect is a snare. Seems useless.

Defiler: Ruinous Anathema: Decreases victim's Noxious mitigation for a short duration. Theoretically this would help Defiler's other Damage spells hit a little harder.

Templar: Judging Smite: Secondary effect is broken if the target takes any other damage. Seems useless.

Inquisitor: Ruthless Invocation: Same as Templar.

 

Is the secondary effects of your Judging Smite really broken?  What is it supposed to do?

 

Fury: Waterspout: Double damage against Elementals. Sounds nice, but Elemental monsters are too sparse.
Warden: Hoarfrost: Same as Fury.

Mystic: Fevered Pox: Double damage against Nightbloods and Shadowed Men. Seems good, but I dont know how well it works in practice.

Defiler: Infestation: Wisdom debuff, theoretically will make all spells hit harder, but in practice Wisdom debuffs dont seem to help a whole lot.

Templar: Consecrated Strike: Double damage to Undead. Sounds good, but as with Mystic, I'm not sure how well it works in practice.

Inquisitor: Scourge: Decreases Mental Mitigation, and also does Mental Damage. Theoretically it will hit a bit harder than it actually says.

 

I've seen posts in the Templar forums citing higher damage done against undead.  If this is working, then it's something Templars have it all over Furies, Wardens, and Mystics since undead are in almost every zone imaginable as opposed to what the rest get.  They probably also have it all over Defilers, since I doubt WIS gets debuffed to the point of anywhere near double damage - I have a WIS debuff on another spell line and I don't see a difference at all.

Honestly, if they gave you Fury damage, they would have to do away with this unless they want Templars encroaching on mage territory with the higher hits.

Fury: Bolt of Storms: No secondary bonus.
Warden: Wintry Cold: Decreases Elemental Mitigation, which will make this spell, and Warden's other 2 damage spell types hit a little harder.
Mystic: Arctic Flames: No secondary bonus. 

Defiler: Fulginous Tendril: Decreases attack speed. Not much of a bonus though.

Templar: Warring Conviction: Hits slightly harder than twice as much damage on the first tick.

Inquisitor: Purifying Flames: Decreases victim's Divine Mitigation. Theoretically will make Ruthless Invocation hit a little harder.

 

Nothing for Furies or Mystics here.  Granted the rest of these secondary effects don't seem so great either.

 

In addition, the following classes have Debuffs.

Fury (Wisdom)

Templar (Mitigation)

Inquisitor (Mitigation)

Cleric (Both subs) also have Symbol of Corruption. (Apprentice 4, 225 int: debuff's 28 Wisdom, and deals damage, but I dont know the duration, so I cant calculate the total damage.)

 

Gladly trade you my WIS debuff for a good Mitigation debuff

If I have missed any, please inform me!

Message Edited by NG23985_01 on 11-08-200503:07 PM

---

[Timaarit]

---

Bad_Mojo wrote:<>

I've seen posts in the Templar forums citing higher damage done against undead.  If this is working, then it's something Templars have it all over Furies, Wardens, and Mystics since undead are in almost every zone imaginable as opposed to what the rest get.  They probably also have it all over Defilers, since I doubt WIS gets debuffed to the point of anywhere near double damage - I have a WIS debuff on another spell line and I don't see a difference at all.

Honestly, if they gave you Fury damage, they would have to do away with this unless they want Templars encroaching on mage territory with the higher hits.

<>

---

Haha, now this is funny. The bonus against undead actully gives us about 20% more DPS against undead. So what you are saying is that furies do 20% less DPS than mages and you think that is how it is supposed to be while furies heal at worst just like any other priest.

[Bad_Mojo]

---

Timaarit wrote:

---

Bad_Mojo wrote:
<>

I've seen posts in the Templar forums citing higher damage done against undead.  If this is working, then it's something Templars have it all over Furies, Wardens, and Mystics since undead are in almost every zone imaginable as opposed to what the rest get.  They probably also have it all over Defilers, since I doubt WIS gets debuffed to the point of anywhere near double damage - I have a WIS debuff on another spell line and I don't see a difference at all.

Honestly, if they gave you Fury damage, they would have to do away with this unless they want Templars encroaching on mage territory with the higher hits.

<>

---

Haha, now this is funny. The bonus against undead actully gives us about 20% more DPS against undead. So what you are saying is that furies do 20% less DPS than mages and you think that is how it is supposed to be while furies heal at worst just like any other priest.

---

Not as funny as you completely miscomprehending what I said.

The original post from the priest forum said "DOUBLE DAMAGE," and I said "IF this is working.  See that "if?" I was going off of 200%, not 20%.

Instead of just answering with "Hey, it's broken and actually only @ 20%," you had to twist it into an attack and put words into my mouth that I never said.  You also ignored everything else, including the spell line where Temps are lowest in DPS and efficiency... What? Is the undead bonus more important than getting that travesty fixed?  See, things like that are what's making the plight of the Templar such a joke.

[Timaarit]

---

Bad_Mojo wrote:

Not as funny as you completely miscomprehending what I said.

The original post from the priest forum said "DOUBLE DAMAGE," and I said "IF this is working.  See that "if?" I was going off of 200%, not 20%.

Instead of just answering with "Hey, it's broken and actually only @ 20%," you had to twist it into an attack and put words into my mouth that I never said.  You also ignored everything else, including the spell line where Temps are lowest in DPS and efficiency... What? Is the undead bonus more important than getting that travesty fixed?  See, things like that are what's making the plight of the Templar such a joke.

---

But it does do double damage on undead and it is working. You totally failed to understand what I wrote. The bonus means templars do 20% more DPS against undeads than other mobs. What you said is that if templars get fury DPS, we need to get rid of that extra damage or we would do damage related to mages. So in effect you said that fury DPS + 20% = mage damage. Or then you are totally wrong and even if templars got fury DPS, this bonus against undead would mean nothing in comparison to mages. And the spell is not broken. But it is only one of our 3 main nukes and it has a long recast time. Our plight lies in totally different place than in one spells bonus damage against undead. Even with that bonus, it is still worse DPS against undead than one of the furys big nukes.

Message Edited by Timaarit on 11-29-2005 02:19 PM

[Bad_Mojo]

---

Timaarit wrote:

---

Bad_Mojo wrote:

Not as funny as you completely miscomprehending what I said.

The original post from the priest forum said "DOUBLE DAMAGE," and I said "IF this is working.  See that "if?" I was going off of 200%, not 20%.

Instead of just answering with "Hey, it's broken and actually only @ 20%," you had to twist it into an attack and put words into my mouth that I never said.  You also ignored everything else, including the spell line where Temps are lowest in DPS and efficiency... What? Is the undead bonus more important than getting that travesty fixed?  See, things like that are what's making the plight of the Templar such a joke.

---

But it does do double damage on undead and it is working. You totally failed to understand what I wrote. The bonus means templars do 20% more DPS against undeads than other mobs. What you said is that if templars get fury DPS, we need to get rid of that extra damage or we would do damage related to mages. So in effect you said that fury DPS + 20% = mage damage.

Ahh, I see.  But I wasn't talking about DPS, I was talking about the raw damage.  Look at the Fury spell in my big post above where we do great damage, but our efficiency is *way* low.  People don't see us casting that spell and say "Wow, look how fast his power is dropping," they say "OMG! Furies are teh win!".  Doubling the damage of that nuke, even if it's only against a certain type of target, would have everybody in here screaming about how Furies are nuking for almost 3k damage.  Nobody cares about the details.

Or then you are totally wrong and even if templars got fury DPS, this bonus against undead would mean nothing in comparison to mages.

Correct, DPS would be nowhere near a mage.  But perception would put you on a pedestal right up here with us Furies

And the spell is not broken. But it is only one of our 3 main nukes and it has a long recast time. Our plight lies in totally different place than in one spells bonus damage against undead. Even with that bonus, it is still worse DPS against undead than one of the furys big nukes.

Which was the point of that post to begin with.  You seem to have your head on straight, what's your assessment of the numbers shown?  I think it highlights a few of the Templars shortcomings, as well as shows an odd trend of damage/efficiency that doesn't seem to follow any set rules.

Message Edited by Timaarit on 11-29-200502:19 PM

---

 

[Timaarit]

---

Bad_Mojo wrote:

---

Here is the actual deal; in comparison to furies, templars do about 30% less DPS than furies with the spells in question. Even against undead templars fall 10% short. And this does not include fury utility damage nor fury burst damage. Personally I have no problems with a fury scoring 1,5k with a single nuke, my problem is that in order to get to same damage, templar has to cast one spell 3 or 4 times and wait for recast every single time. Eventually this means 3 to 4 times longer soloing. Besides, a lvl 55 wizard will do 4k+ damage per hit against undead while my templar can at best do a bit under 1k (with divine debuff and 230 int). so triple damage would not be anything special there (this is part of suggestion to triple damage and power cost on templar nukes and to multiply recast by 2,5 in order to put them inline with fury base DPS).

[Bad_Mojo]

---

Timaarit wrote:

---

Bad_Mojo wrote:

---

Here is the actual deal; in comparison to furies, templars do about 30% less DPS than furies with the spells in question. Even against undead templars fall 10% short. And this does not include fury utility damage nor fury burst damage. Personally I have no problems with a fury scoring 1,5k with a single nuke, my problem is that in order to get to same damage, templar has to cast one spell 3 or 4 times and wait for recast every single time. Eventually this means 3 to 4 times longer soloing.

Besides, a lvl 55 wizard will do 4k+ damage per hit against undead while my templar can at best do a bit under 1k (with divine debuff and 230 int). so triple damage would not be anything special there (this is part of suggestion to triple damage and power cost on templar nukes and to multiply recast by 2,5 in order to put them inline with fury base DPS).

---

Good points.  I think it's important to state however that in the grand scheme of things, 30% less DPS should not directly balance out to 30% more healing on the other end.  When it comes time to form a group, and a healer is needed - who is going to get picked?  Only a fool would pick the higher damaging/less healing priest for the job.  I admit (moreso after reviewing some spell stats for most of the healing caste) that something should be done though. I Think what they may have been trying to go for is Templars taking longer, but coming out of the fight with more mana (more efficient), and Furies being quicker but burning more mana.  This would balance out with downtime, we would need more and Templars would be quicker to get on to the next encounter.  I'm not sure they were successful.  I used to think "Yeah, we do more upfront damage, but in the long haul I'm sure Templars and Inquisitors are far more efficient with their faster casting though less damaging spells.  Mystics and Defilers of course would be in the happy medium."

I see that's not really the case.  In some ways, the Shaman classes are better, in some the Furies.  Templars and Inquisitors really have no claim to fame, not even effeciency.  Does this mean Furies need nerfed?  I don't think so.  There are other classes *right* behind us, if we go down, all we are doing is shifting the target of everyone elses ire to those classes - The bickering will all be the same, it will just be who is getting called out that will be different.

[Timaarit]

---

Bad_Mojo wrote:

Good points.  I think it's important to state however that in the grand scheme of things, 30% less DPS should not directly balance out to 30% more healing on the other end.  When it comes time to form a group, and a healer is needed - who is going to get picked?  Only a fool would pick the higher damaging/less healing priest for the job.

---

The thing is that the 30% difference is in base nukes. Furies have other DPS methods also and the base nukes (which are 30% more effective than templar nukes) are less that 50% of fury DPS. Also at lvl 52 furies sill outheal templars in raw healing power and they get another heal at 55.

[Vikto]

---

Caethre wrote:
OOC.

 I play both classes, I can make that call from experience.

Felishanna [53 Templar]

Annaelisa [46 Fury]

 

---

A little tired of seeing this really. You play both classes so you claim experience eh? You've played a Fury since the Combat Update, that does not equate to any real knowledge of the class at all, since you never experienced the major problems we had before the update. Please refrain from claiming something you do not have, as your 'experience' has no actual meaning without having experienced the history.

 

Rensu, and other Furys like him fought long and hard to bring the issues of our class to the Devs' attention. Now that that work has paid off, people want to cry about it. Where were the Templars before the Combat Update bringing up DPS issues like Rensu brought up Fury healing issues? Oh, that's right. There were none. Know why? Because Templars could get a group within seconds, everyone wanted them. They never wanted for much of anything from what I've read on the boards.

 

Yeah, I know, everything changed in the CU. Soloing became an issue with more classes. Templars lost their advantage over other healers, so are now relegated to actually compete with others, or go solo.

 

Ever since I've been following this discussion, I've been asking my groups (when I'm not in a guild group) why they picked me. Never once was it because I could DPS. They said they needed a healer and asked the first available. Feels good to be one of those 'first available' healers now. I've never seen any groups /ooc for a Fury, but I've seen a lot /ooc for a healer. Glad I can send em a tell and not be laughed at anymore.

 

Furies have become FoTM (Flavor of The Month) just because it appears there are more healer classes that actually wanted to be DPS instead but were afraid to admit it before.

 

[Cowdenic]

---

Viktorr wrote:

---

Caethre wrote:
OOC.

 I play both classes, I can make that call from experience.

Felishanna [53 Templar]

Annaelisa [46 Fury]

 

---

A little tired of seeing this really. You play both classes so you claim experience eh? You've played a Fury since the Combat Update, that does not equate to any real knowledge of the class at all, since you never experienced the major problems we had before the update. Please refrain from claiming something you do not have, as your 'experience' has no actual meaning without having experienced the history.

 

Rensu, and other Furys like him fought long and hard to bring the issues of our class to the Devs' attention. Now that that work has paid off, people want to cry about it. Where were the Templars before the Combat Update bringing up DPS issues like Rensu brought up Fury healing issues? Oh, that's right. There were none. Know why? Because Templars could get a group within seconds, everyone wanted them. They never wanted for much of anything from what I've read on the boards.

 

Yeah, I know, everything changed in the CU. Soloing became an issue with more classes. Templars lost their advantage over other healers, so are now relegated to actually compete with others, or go solo.

 

Ever since I've been following this discussion, I've been asking my groups (when I'm not in a guild group) why they picked me. Never once was it because I could DPS. They said they needed a healer and asked the first available. Feels good to be one of those 'first available' healers now. I've never seen any groups /ooc for a Fury, but I've seen a lot /ooc for a healer. Glad I can send em a tell and not be laughed at anymore.

 

Furies have become FoTM (Flavor of The Month) just because it appears there are more healer classes that actually wanted to be DPS instead but were afraid to admit it before.

 

---

The problems before the Combat Update dont really matter anymore. Get over yourself. You are no better because you played longer. You played a broke class before the CU. You want a cookie?

Now Furys are the best healers, best burst damage, best sustained damage, better than most utility and you call this balance. Yeah. Doctor heal thyself.

[Vikto]

---

Cowdenicus wrote:

The problems before the Combat Update dont really matter anymore. Get over yourself. You are no better because you played longer. You played a broke class before the CU. You want a cookie?

Now Furys are the best healers, best burst damage, best sustained damage, better than most utility and you call this balance. Yeah. Doctor heal thyself.

---

Hey Cow, my point had you read my post was that people are claiming experience without having actually played the class when things were bad. That brings a whole different perspective on what the experience is, even someone like you should be able to figure that out. The problems before the CU do matter if you're going to be making any real judgments on the class. Now, get over yourself as you put it.

 

As for your second statement, prove it. About the only thing I would agree with in your statement would be we're the best burst damage of the priest classes. The rest is a matter of perspective and play style.

[Edyil]

---

bigmak2010 wrote:

---

Edyil wrote:

You people spend way too much time in your neighbors sand box.  Worry about your own class and stop the inept and idiotic comparisons.

My daily group is Monk (Me), Warden, (GF sitting next to me), Warlock (RL best friend), Templar (his GF sitting next to him).

The truth of the matter is, compared to me, the warden and the templar totally suck at damage.  Their contribution is visiable but nothing to speak.  Another truth of the matter is that the Warlock makes my damage look like a pillow fight and he makes the damage the Warden and Templar do combined to be all but meaningless.  Working as intended?  You bet your complaing [Removed for Content] it is.  And we are all very happy with it.

Now, if you want to talk about the ability to solo, the Templars need a buff of some sort for solo melee.  Sort of like the EQ1 Yaulp.  It would work because in a group they would be focusing on healing and reduce the value of Yaulp.  But solo they could significally increase their damage (Stop saying DPS.  The term is meaningless when discussing a healing class.  If you can't even get that straight then don't post) by casting a Reactive, then Yaulp and  then melee the target down.  Yaulp could be a 4s buff with a 6s recast, which would work nicely to get the next Reactive up before recasting Yaulp.

Finally, nobody EVER said that all subclasses of a class will be equal.  They said they will be approximate.  Which they are.  The Warden and the Templar are very different.  Both are very very valuable.  Both are desired.  If you would stop doing direct comparisons and actually play your class, you might enjoy it (solo ability aside).  Just keep in mind that at the bottom tier, it will take a long time to solo anything down.  If you don't like that, then you have no choice but to change tiers, which means to re-roll.  Also keep in mind that you can spec your toon any way you want.  Say to hell with Wis and go for Int gear.  You WILL see a big difference in damage.  This path is totaly viable for a solo Templar.  If you want the best of both worlds, sorry.  None of us have that.

Message Edited by Edyil on 11-22-2005 06:33 AM

---

Nope, Bull.  You spec for Int your dmg still sucks as a Templar.  Stop repeating that lie.

And this isn't EQ1, get over it.

---

So your rebuttle is "bull"?  Heh.  Case closed. 

[Caethre]

OOC.

---

Viktorr wrote:

---

Caethre wrote:
OOC.

 I play both classes...

Felishanna [53 Templar]

Annaelisa [46 Fury]

---

A little tired of seeing this really.

---

Whether you believe I or anyone else has a right to an opinion is, frankly, irrelevant. Though I might add, that since you are posting on this issue and you only play a 50 Fury and no Templar, you know about the concerns of Templars ... how exactly? Thank you for your constructive (not) post. The fact remains, playing both classes does mean it is harder for people like you to pull the wool over other's eyes.

 

But for what it is worth, I am "a little tired of seeing" a small number of druid players complain about Templars looking for their class to be fixed. If you don't want to see it, noone forces you to read our threads. No-one here is calling for a nerf to Furies... so why EXACTLY are YOU here, flaming Templars?

 

The Templar class currently has basically equal healing and weak DPS and utility compared to other priests, and I know first hand, that the difference between Templar and Fury in the soloing/small group arena is night and day. That is what this thread is about - getting our Templar class fixed. Your flames are, in the end, irrelevant.

 

Felishanna / Annaelisa

 

Message Edited by Caethre on 11-29-2005 07:42 PM

[Kendricke]

I, for one, think every opinion is important, regardless of seniority, post count, level, class, or even playstyle.  We all have something to add to the discussion, even when it's divergent from what someone else may think.  Everyone has a right to an opinion, and no matter how "informed" someone claims they are, there are always different items which can be brought to the table by another opinion being shared. 

So long as we refrain from attacking one another, there's no end to what we might be able to accomplish. 

 

[Vikto]

---

Caethre wrote:
OOC.

---

Viktorr wrote:

---

Caethre wrote:
OOC.

 I play both classes...

Felishanna [53 Templar]

Annaelisa [46 Fury]

---

A little tired of seeing this really.

---

Whether you believe I or anyone else has a right to an opinion is, frankly, irrelevant. Though I might add, that since you are posting on this issue and you only play a 50 Fury and no Templar, you know about the concerns of Templars ... how exactly? Thank you for your constructive (not) post. The fact remains, playing both classes does mean it is harder for people like you to pull the wool over other's eyes.

 

But for what it is worth, I am "a little tired of seeing" a small number of druid players complain about Templars looking for their class to be fixed. If you don't want to see it, noone forces you to read our threads. No-one here is calling for a nerf to Furies... so why EXACTLY are YOU here, flaming Templars?

 

The Templar class currently has basically equal healing and weak DPS and utility compared to other priests, and I know first hand, that the difference between Templar and Fury in the soloing/small group arena is night and day. That is what this thread is about - getting our Templar class fixed. Your flames are, in the end, irrelevant.

 

Felishanna / Annaelisa

 

Message Edited by Caethre on 11-29-200507:42 PM

---

O.K. Caethre, point out to me where I flamed Templars at any time. Seriously. Can you? I might have flamed a person or two, but not a class. As for why I am here, people are way exaggerating things about the Fury class. Also, tell me where I said at any point that Templars didn't need some help?

Everyone has an opinion. Everyone can express their opinion. I'm fine with that. I expressed my opinion that you're trying to play off the "I picked up playing a Fury so now I'm an expert" line, which I think is trying to cover up an overreaction on your part. It's my opinion that you're not qualified to make judgements about the class just from playing it when it's in an upward swing, not when it's been down and near useless in any situation except for soloing. If you don't agree, I'm fine with that. I'm not here to make you agree with me anyways.

If you were here trying to get your class fixed, you wouldn't be just focussing on the Fury class in a comparison, and just generalizing on the other classes. I would imagine you would research the other classes as well, and bring that information with you in a constructive post that will get the devs attention, and a dev response. It's what the Fury class did. We got a response. Also.....don't take my sig as to what level Fury I have. I haven't upgraded my sig in months. My Fury is currently 53 (I'm not trying to level fast, I'm trying to enjoy the content. But will be 54 soon). As for me not playing a Templar......well I never have and never will since that's not the choice I made a year ago. It's also not a choice I made when Furys had problems.

If you read my first post I made in this thread you will know why I am here. Apparently you forgot, go back and read it. I never made any claims about the Templar class except  for the fact that I have spoken to Templars on my server and have reason to believe things aren't as broken as you are making it out to be. Yes, Templars need some boost, I've said it time and again. You just seem to be skipping over that as evidenced by your reaction.

 

Edit: Updated my sig just for you :smileytongue:

Message Edited by Viktorr on 11-29-2005 02:02 PM

[Mabes]

The main problem, imo, is that every class, including all other healers, solo far better than clerics.  I plain out refuse to solo ever, because it takes forever to kill anything, and I can't kill more than a couple greens before my power runs out.

 

Grouping is still fun though, expecially if I'm the only healer.

[Kendricke]

---

Mabes wrote:

The main problem, imo, is that every class, including all other healers, solo far better than clerics.  I plain out refuse to solo ever, because it takes forever to kill anything, and I can't kill more than a couple greens before my power runs out.

 

Grouping is still fun though, expecially if I'm the only healer.

---

What gets me though is that we've never soloed as well as other classes.  Ever.  This isn't a new situation at all.

 

[beylanu]

Kendricke wrote:What gets me though is that we've never soloed as well as other classes.  Ever.  This isn't a new situation at all.

---

I think the point these templars are trying to make is...BEFOREtemplars couldn't solo well, but really excelled in groups, in comparison to other healersNOWtemplars can't solo well, but don't really excel in groups, in comparison to other healersYour comment, kendricke, while valid, doesn't address this issue.  Even if templars can't solo well before, and still don't solo well after, doesn't do anything to ease their pain, now that they no longer excel in groups, when in comparison to other healers.----To put it another way, before the CU, templars were gods in groups.  Let's say a few of them notice a severe deficiency in soloing.  They could have whined and [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ed up a storm about their lack of soloing DPS.  The most likely response would have been..jeez, you're an awesome healer, and you're still WHINING?!?Telling templars to shut up about their poor DPS now, because they "forgot" to complain about it before the CU isn't a valid standpoint.  If they had complained before, they would have been shouted down as being greedy.----That said.  I'm not a templar, I'm a warden.  I don't necessarily agree with the above premise.  I also don't proclaim to understand the plight of the templar class.  If you guys are severely lacking in the DPS department, then yah, I feel for you when soloing.

[Kendricke]

I'm not stating that our DPS couldn't use a boost.  However, I personally think that's a stopgap solution to a larger issue.

 

Combat across the board should be harder.  I'd like to see all herioc encounters with 40-50% more health in general.  Group fights take next to no time right now, with many kills occuring within the first 20-30 seconds...if that long.  Increasing most health by 40-50% would increase most encounters by 15-20 seconds at least in a group setting...and heroics shouldn't be thought of as solo targets to begin with.

 

I'd also like to see more attacks from targets - especially in heroic and even epic encounters, but with less damage per hit.  This won't affect wards for the most part, nor will it really affect regenerations.  What it will do is give a little more "oomph" to reactive heals, and lessen the effects of spike damage overall.

 

These two basic changes across the board will bring back priests to groups in a larger way in general, with a slight emphasis on giving Templars back a bit of their previous role as a primary support healer without unduly removing the ability of other healers to keep groups standing.

 

This won't actually address soloing situations, and I freely admit that.  However, my primary concern is moving Templars a bit back toward a previous "feel" rather than coming up with what I personally feel are stop-gap workarounds.

 

 

[Caethre]

OOC.

---

Viktorr wrote:

I might have flamed a person or two, but not a class.

When was flaming ever acceptable on these boards?

As for why I am here, people are way exaggerating things about the Fury class.

I cannot speak for others. However, I have at no time exaggerated, I have stated the exact truth as I see it. I play both Templar and Fury classes, I will keep saying it, because it is both a fact and highly relevant as a context for my observations.

If you played a Templar yourself, you might be able to comment on the problems of our class, or on the relative balance between our class and one or more of the other priest classes, with at least some degree of knowledge. You may still of course post anyway, without that knowledge, but the assumption is, you would post on the subject at hand.

I expressed my opinion that you're trying to play off the "I picked up playing a Fury so now I'm an expert" line, which I think is trying to cover up an overreaction on your part.

I did not claim expert status, you exaggerate in order to try to ridicule, and it does not wash. However, I am clearly far better informed than you to comment on Templar (hint: the subject of this thread), since you do not play a Templar. And I am able to compare with Fury in some detail, since ... yes you got it .. I play both. I am far from an expert, but it is still a valid comment.

But you didn't express an opinion on the subject, at all; instead, you expressed an opinion on me and on how qualified you believe me to be to even comment, something you are most certainly in no position to judge. That, sir, was merely a personal remark, not a constructive remark on the subject, and frankly, was of no value, and that, sir, is my opinion. You are entitled to hold any opinion you wish, however, you are the one who overreacted by making such a remark, and my response would have been highly predictable given the personal nature of your remarks.

It's my opinion that you're not qualified to make judgements about the class ... If you don't agree, I'm fine with that. I'm not here to make you agree with me anyways.

And here you are again, commenting on ME, not on the issue. You are entitled to your opinion, even if I interpret it as 'you have no right to post mentioning that you play both classes', but you are correct, I do not agree with you, and like you, I have no particular need for your agreement.

Why exactly do you think I posted this thread? So I can read some whines from a few non-Templars who don't like us campaigning to get our broken class fixed? To get a few personal attacks and remarks? Of course, I knew the thread would get its share of trolls, but the POINT was and is to indicate the major imbalance in the priest classes to SoE, and how unhappy many Templars are as a result.

 

Yes, there are one or two Templars who for their own reasons keep posting hundreds of times how happy they are right now, well good for them, but the rest of us are going to keep posting all salient facts and observations, together with reporting our unhappiness at what we see as the critical wounding of our class in some domains of play (most notably from my perspective in the small groups arena), until the situation is remedied.

---

Felishanna / Annaelisa

 

[Cowdenic]

---

Viktorr wrote:

---

Cowdenicus wrote:

The problems before the Combat Update dont really matter anymore. Get over yourself. You are no better because you played longer. You played a broke class before the CU. You want a cookie?

Now Furys are the best healers, best burst damage, best sustained damage, better than most utility and you call this balance. Yeah. Doctor heal thyself.

---

Hey Cow, my point had you read my post was that people are claiming experience without having actually played the class when things were bad. That brings a whole different perspective on what the experience is, even someone like you should be able to figure that out. The problems before the CU do matter if you're going to be making any real judgments on the class. Now, get over yourself as you put it.

 

As for your second statement, prove it. About the only thing I would agree with in your statement would be we're the best burst damage of the priest classes. The rest is a matter of perspective and play style.

---

No the problems need to be based on what is NOW. The judgements need to be made on as things stand NOW. There is no reason why one class in an archtype should be better than anybody else at just about everything. There is no reason to say, oh you werent working before so we make you the uber class now, no apologists here for you being messed up before.

The rest as you put it is, A. You have more spell lines, B. Group Regen at its best heals 4 times as much as any other group special heal and at its worst (being a group spell healing 2 people) is 1.333 ad infinitum times better. Dont make me go deeper, just search my posts or the tons of datum out there.

[Cowdenic]

---

Caethre wrote:

OOC.

---

Viktorr wrote:

I might have flamed a person or two, but not a class.

When was flaming ever acceptable on these boards?

As for why I am here, people are way exaggerating things about the Fury class.

I cannot speak for others. However, I have at no time exaggerated, I have stated the exact truth as I see it. I play both Templar and Fury classes, I will keep saying it, because it is both a fact and highly relevant as a context for my observations.

If you played a Templar yourself, you might be able to comment on the problems of our class, or on the relative balance between our class and one or more of the other priest classes, with at least some degree of knowledge. You may still of course post anyway, without that knowledge, but the assumption is, you would post on the subject at hand.

I expressed my opinion that you're trying to play off the "I picked up playing a Fury so now I'm an expert" line, which I think is trying to cover up an overreaction on your part.

I did not claim expert status, you exaggerate in order to try to ridicule, and it does not wash. However, I am clearly far better informed than you to comment on Templar (hint: the subject of this thread), since you do not play a Templar. And I am able to compare with Fury in some detail, since ... yes you got it .. I play both. I am far from an expert, but it is still a valid comment.

But you didn't express an opinion on the subject, at all; instead, you expressed an opinion on me and on how qualified you believe me to be to even comment, something you are most certainly in no position to judge. That, sir, was merely a personal remark, not a constructive remark on the subject, and frankly, was of no value, and that, sir, is my opinion. You are entitled to hold any opinion you wish, however, you are the one who overreacted by making such a remark, and my response would have been highly predictable given the personal nature of your remarks.

It's my opinion that you're not qualified to make judgements about the class ... If you don't agree, I'm fine with that. I'm not here to make you agree with me anyways.

And here you are again, commenting on ME, not on the issue. You are entitled to your opinion, even if I interpret it as 'you have no right to post mentioning that you play both classes', but you are correct, I do not agree with you, and like you, I have no particular need for your agreement.

Why exactly do you think I posted this thread? So I can read some whines from a few non-Templars who don't like us campaigning to get our broken class fixed? To get a few personal attacks and remarks? Of course, I knew the thread would get its share of trolls, but the POINT was and is to indicate the major imbalance in the priest classes to SoE, and how unhappy many Templars are as a result.

 

Yes, there are one or two Templars who for their own reasons keep posting hundreds of times how happy they are right now, well good for them, but the rest of us are going to keep posting all salient facts and observations, together with reporting our unhappiness at what we see as the critical wounding of our class in some domains of play (most notably from my perspective in the small groups arena), until the situation is remedied.

---

Felishanna / Annaelisa

 

---

Cathere,

2 personal comments.

1. You Rule. Where as I would have just flamed the guy and had Rajinn come in and edit the post (hopefully after this person seen it) you laid the smack down without loosing your cool.

2. Cathere for teh w1n.

[Vikto]

Caethre, I will concede the point that my posts have become more non-constructive and opinionated. For that you have my apology. I will however stick by my original post in this thread, which also explains why I came here in the first place. Please, go back and re-read it. I never once claimed any intimate knowledge of the Templar class, but that does not prevent me from talking to those who play Templars and gaining knowledge by word of mouth. I know your class has issues since the CU. I never denied that. However, I haven't met any Templar on my server who has made any claims that they are broken, and believe me I have asked. That makes it difficult for me to believe those who claim they are on the boards here.

I guess my biggest problem I have in this thread is that I feel it has perhaps gone beyond just discussing Templar issues to being a war between Furys and Templars, which I admit I contributed to in my last few posts. However, I am not the one who brought up Furys time and again to begin with. I just feel that if you want to really bring the issues to light with your class to the devs, you need to put it in perspective with all healing classes, not just focusing on one. I don't mean just generalizations about the others either. Specific information about the other healing classes is out there to be used in making your comparisons, it's not something you need to roll an alt and play to find out. Even talk with some on your server, ask them to help compile the info for you. I'm sure you have friends who play other healing classes, it shouldn't be difficult to find those willing to help.

Cowdenicus, you have my apology as well if I offended, but I will stand by my view that a person who played a class before and after changes were made will have a different perspective about the class than a person who picked up playing that class after the changes were made, and that would affect the viewpoint when comparing that class to another. It's a two-way street, as I'm not the only one in this thread who has used that type of reasoning.

[Mew]

I agree with the original poster.  Templars are fine on big raids because of big heals but useless for small groups.  Soloing is possible but its a lot slower than with any other class (except maybe illusionists). Someone mentioned the usefulness of the Odessey spell - well, in 12 months of playing a Templar I have actually used Odessey twice.  I wouldn't call that useful. Templars need more offensive abilities.  Of course if the devs did that then Paladins would start complaining that we were stomping on their turf....

[StevusX]

When i first bought EQ2 templars could solo reasonably well - this was stated in EQ's own class description and was one of the main reasons i started a templar as a plate wearing healer WHO COULD SOLO.  

Six months later came the CU and my character's ability to solo took a nose dive. Yes it is still possible but painfully painfully slow and generally restricted to green and blue solo or small mobs.

How can Sony, or anyone else, justify as acceptable drastically changing my ability to play the game from what i originally purchased.

This is  NOT what i paid for and invested my time in.

I am a member of one of the largest guilds on runnyeye and i can state categorically that most templars in the guild are extremely upset. Most now only play when they are needed in a group or raid and have semi retired their templars to play alts they can also solo with. Some have retired completely until things improve.

All i ask is that sony balance our class for solo play. I don't expect to solo massively well but the situation as it stands is simply nonsense.

I have a quest book full because unless i want to group I can not complete most of them, even the ones supposedly solo friendly.

Why should i have to group all the time just to be able to complete solo content in a reasonable time and manner.

 

The main problems are an acute lack of damage output combined with the ridiculous number of interupts and fizzles.

Combined with the mobs increased health, increased damage output and apparent increased regen rates make it extremely difficult.

Some solutions to this can include an increase in damage output, better mitigation for plate armour, possible use of better shields, a damage sheild spell. etc etc

None of which affects any other class.

It has now been over two months since the CU and despite a few very minor improvements nothing has basically changed.

Its been long enough, I pay a subscription like every other player and i should be able to enjoy the game i have invested my time and money in like other players.

 

BALANCE OUR SOLO PLAY - NOW PLEASE

[Bad_Mojo]

---

StevusX wrote:

The main problems are an acute lack of damage output combined with the ridiculous number of interupts and fizzles.

Combined with the mobs increased health, increased damage output and apparent increased regen rates make it extremely difficult.

Some solutions to this can include an increase in damage output, better mitigation for plate armour, possible use of better shields, a damage sheild spell. etc etc

None of which affects any other class.

---

Huh?

[Kendricke]

---

Bad_Mojo wrote:

---

StevusX wrote:

The main problems are an acute lack of damage output combined with the ridiculous number of interupts and fizzles.

Combined with the mobs increased health, increased damage output and apparent increased regen rates make it extremely difficult.

Some solutions to this can include an increase in damage output, better mitigation for plate armour, possible use of better shields, a damage sheild spell. etc etc

None of which affects any other class.

---

Huh?

---

I thought the same thing.  Apparantly only we Templars are affected by increased monster health, increased damage output, increased regeneration rates, and fizzle/interuption increases.  All you other classes are still playing pre-revamp, I guess.