RAID WIDE BUFFS. 8 chanters/bards is ridiculous.

Davngr · 07-31-2012, 02:45 PM

the tittle says it all.

we need cross group/raid wide buffs. it's possible and now that all the crybaby dirges aren't overpowerd they won't whine about losing their spot.

Davngr · 07-31-2012, 03:08 PM

Luhai wrote:

*Please do not quote forum violations*

i don't see the complain in this thread. i'm asking for raid wide/cross group buffs. you know.. a worth while expenditure of dev time!

Freejazzlive · 07-31-2012, 03:27 PM

This Troubie agrees with the OP.

Neiloch · 07-31-2012, 04:01 PM

I also agree. The demand for utility classes is far too high for how many of them there are.

Yimway · 07-31-2012, 04:07 PM

Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2:

Tank

Heal

Dps

Utility

If you broke it even thats 6 of each. I see no reason to bring more than 4 tanks, so thats 2 more that gets carried over to the utility collumn.

I'm not sure anything is really broken here. Yeah, I'd rather those 2 carry over to the dps column instead, but they've yet proven they can make that work. Even when they took a serious effort at it, the really important buffs were not duplicated enough that anyone would seriously decide to bring less utility. The min/maxers were going to continue to bring just as much utility with the proposed change, it just didn't penalize those guilds who can't field the utility classes quite as hard.

SoE has shown they are unwilling to buff the utility classes enough to lower the desired number, so I think we're stuck with what we have.

BTW, remove reckless stance, kk thx.

Neiloch · 07-31-2012, 04:28 PM

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2:
Tank - 6
Heal - 6
Dps - 8
Utility - 4
If you broke it even thats 6 of each.

But there isn't 6 of each. So unless they are going to start giving out some more stances, specifically utility stances to DPS, they need to make it so the ideal setup doesn't include 8 slots for 4 classes. Obviously this won't bring about perfectly even distribution, if that should even be a goal, but it would open up more room in raids for roles that have a poor class/slot ratio in comparison.

Juggercap · 07-31-2012, 04:31 PM

Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:

Atan@Unrest wrote:
Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2:
Tank - 6
Heal - 6
Dps - 8
Utility - 4
If you broke it even thats 6 of each.
But there isn't 6 of each. So unless they are going to start giving out some more stances, specifically utility stances to DPS, they need to make it so the ideal setup doesn't include 8 slots for 4 classes.

When you quote someone and change what they said, please make a point of it. Those numbers were not given and are not compatible with the rest of his statement.

Shotneedle · 07-31-2012, 04:37 PM

Juggercap wrote:

Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:
Atan@Unrest wrote:
Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2:
Tank - 6
Heal - 6
Dps - 8
Utility - 4
If you broke it even thats 6 of each.
But there isn't 6 of each. So unless they are going to start giving out some more stances, specifically utility stances to DPS, they need to make it so the ideal setup doesn't include 8 slots for 4 classes.
When you quote someone and change what they said, please make a point of it. Those numbers were not given and are not compatible with the rest of his statement.

Are you colorblind?

Also, dps classes with utility stances like....beastlords?

Yimway · 07-31-2012, 04:39 PM

Buffrat@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Also, dps classes with utility stances like....beastlords?

I've asked BL's about their utility stance. They seem to claim it doesn't exist...

Juggercap · 07-31-2012, 04:43 PM

Buffrat@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Juggercap wrote:
Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:
Atan@Unrest wrote:
Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2:
Tank - 6
Heal - 6
Dps - 8
Utility - 4
If you broke it even thats 6 of each.
But there isn't 6 of each. So unless they are going to start giving out some more stances, specifically utility stances to DPS, they need to make it so the ideal setup doesn't include 8 slots for 4 classes.
When you quote someone and change what they said, please make a point of it. Those numbers were not given and are not compatible with the rest of his statement.
Are you colorblind?
Also, dps classes with utility stances like....beastlords?

I'm not, but thank you for your concern. The numbers still are not in line with what was said. The post was misleading.

Koleg · 07-31-2012, 04:45 PM

Buffrat@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Juggercap wrote:
Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:
Atan@Unrest wrote:
Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2:
Tank - 6
Heal - 6
Dps - 8 6 + BL
Utility - 4 6 + BL
If you broke it even thats 6 of each.
But there isn't 6 of each. So unless they are going to start giving out some more stances, specifically utility stances to DPS, they need to make it so the ideal setup doesn't include 8 slots for 4 classes.
When you quote someone and change what they said, please make a point of it. Those numbers were not given and are not compatible with the rest of his statement.
Are you colorblind?
Also, dps classes with utility stances like....beastlords?

Summoners are the under-utilized, under-appreciated (due to being poorly played in general) T2 Utility. We don't need less Utility, we need more reason to -play- utility. They aren't always fun, especially when your #1 job is to make other ppl look better. It's a thankless job for all of the parse-chasers out there.

Shotneedle · 07-31-2012, 04:46 PM

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Buffrat@Antonia Bayle wrote:
Also, dps classes with utility stances like....beastlords?
I've asked BL's about their utility stance. They seem to claim it doesn't exist...

More power regen than an illy. Spiritual would be great if SOE cared enough to fix the spiritual primal hit rates (and maybe double the range/radius on the buffs), which while broken make the stance mostly worthless.

Freejazzlive · 07-31-2012, 05:23 PM

Juggercap wrote:

Buffrat@Antonia Bayle wrote:
Juggercap wrote:
Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:
Atan@Unrest wrote:
Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2:
Tank - 6
Heal - 6
Dps - 8
Utility - 4
If you broke it even thats 6 of each.
But there isn't 6 of each. So unless they are going to start giving out some more stances, specifically utility stances to DPS, they need to make it so the ideal setup doesn't include 8 slots for 4 classes.
When you quote someone and change what they said, please make a point of it. Those numbers were not given and are not compatible with the rest of his statement.
Are you colorblind?
Also, dps classes with utility stances like....beastlords?
I'm not, but thank you for your concern. The numbers still are not in line with what was said. The post was misleading.

Um ... unless I miss my guess, Neiloch wasn't trying to be "in line" with what Atan said, precisely because he disagrees with Atan's statement that there are 6 classes for each role. In fact, I think that was pretty clearly stated by the "but there isn't 6 of each line," so I'm really not sure what your complaint is.

Juggercap · 07-31-2012, 05:36 PM

Freejazzlive wrote:

Juggercap wrote:
Buffrat@Antonia Bayle wrote:
Juggercap wrote:
Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:
Atan@Unrest wrote:
Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2:
Tank - 6
Heal - 6
Dps - 8
Utility - 4
If you broke it even thats 6 of each.
But there isn't 6 of each. So unless they are going to start giving out some more stances, specifically utility stances to DPS, they need to make it so the ideal setup doesn't include 8 slots for 4 classes.
When you quote someone and change what they said, please make a point of it. Those numbers were not given and are not compatible with the rest of his statement.
Are you colorblind?
Also, dps classes with utility stances like....beastlords?
I'm not, but thank you for your concern. The numbers still are not in line with what was said. The post was misleading.
Um ... unless I miss my guess, Neiloch wasn't trying to be "in line" with what Atan said, precisely because he disagrees with Atan's statement that there are 6 classes for each role. In fact, I think that was pretty clearly stated by the "but there isn't 6 of each line," so I'm really not sure what your complaint is.

getting way off topic now, so I'll just say this is my last response about this part of it. Atan clearly gave at least one example of why it was ''not'' 6 of each, yet there 6 tanks are in the numbers. Who the ... brings 6 tanks? (oh wait, reckless stance. Nvm)

It's OK for the post next to it, but if it gets quoted on page 2, it's without the required context.

Geothe · 07-31-2012, 05:54 PM

Overall,Yes, it is currently moronic that 33% of the raid slots (in an optimized raid) currently are given over to just 4 classes (16% of the total classes in the game).Would I love to see it changed so that one of each of those classes can currently do what 2 do now? Yes, that would be awesome.

I doubt that would every happen though as it will take some big mechanics/buff/coding changes to do it, and I dont see Dev time being allocated to do that with the current direction the higher ups are doing with this game.

But allowing (for example) 1 dirge to be able to hate buff 4 total tanks, in 4 different groups, be able to put battle cry on 4 melee, in 4 different groups. And illy to be able to TC/IA/AI 4 people in 4 different groups, yes, that would be great and would allow a lot less stringency in raid setups for sure.

Juggercap · 07-31-2012, 05:58 PM

Geothe wrote:

Overall,Yes, it is currently moronic that 33% of the raid slots (in an optimized raid) currently are given over to just 4 classes (16% of the total classes in the game).Would I love to see it changed so that one of each of those classes can currently do what 2 do now? Yes, that would be awesome.
I doubt that would every happen though as it will take some big mechanics/buff/coding changes to do it, and I dont see Dev time being allocated to do that with the current direction the higher ups are doing with this game.
But allowing (for example) 1 dirge to be able to hate buff 4 total tanks, in 4 different groups, be able to put battle cry on 4 melee, in 4 different groups. And illy to be able to TC/IA/AI 4 people in 4 different groups, yes, that would be great and would allow a lot less stringency in raid setups for sure.

extra hate buffs...meh.

I would assume that extra battle cry buffs would just mean heavier leaning to melee dps...not less dirges

Neiloch · 07-31-2012, 06:02 PM

Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:

Summoners are the under-utilized, under-appreciated (due to being poorly played in general) T2 Utility. We don't need less Utility, we need more reason to -play- utility. They aren't always fun, especially when your #1 job is to make other ppl look better. It's a thankless job for all of the parse-chasers out there.

I'd never call summoners utility. The ones i've seen that play well parse a soft T1, better on AE fights. Hearts and shards tend to be 'last resort' items. ET is real nice though. They have some but again i would never categorize them with enchanters or bards.

The way they have stats so homoginized they could easily buff utility by just slapping crit bonus and potency on group buffs.

Geothe · 07-31-2012, 06:06 PM

Juggercap wrote:

Geothe wrote:
Overall,Yes, it is currently moronic that 33% of the raid slots (in an optimized raid) currently are given over to just 4 classes (16% of the total classes in the game).Would I love to see it changed so that one of each of those classes can currently do what 2 do now? Yes, that would be awesome.
I doubt that would every happen though as it will take some big mechanics/buff/coding changes to do it, and I dont see Dev time being allocated to do that with the current direction the higher ups are doing with this game.
But allowing (for example) 1 dirge to be able to hate buff 4 total tanks, in 4 different groups, be able to put battle cry on 4 melee, in 4 different groups. And illy to be able to TC/IA/AI 4 people in 4 different groups, yes, that would be great and would allow a lot less stringency in raid setups for sure.
extra hate buffs...meh.
I would assume that extra battle cry buffs would just mean heavier leaning to melee dps...not less dirges

They attempted to do this in a Beta (SF maybe?). And one of the restrictions put in was 1 buff allowed per group total (or attempted to code). So 1 dirge in raid = 4 BCs, 1 per group. 2 dirge in raid = still 4 BCs, only 1 per group. Likewise with Illy/Coercer/Troub buffs. Their current single target buffs were castable on one person in each group, but only 1 buff total was allowed per group so bringing multiple dirges (for example) would now allowed 2+ BCs in every group.S

Priddles · 07-31-2012, 06:33 PM

This seems more like an archaic leftover than something that is still logically in the game.

Yes, buffbots -err...I mean, troubs and corecers still need to feel special, but there's really no reason for not having raid wide buffs. it's 2012, not 2004.

Yimway · 07-31-2012, 06:37 PM

Freejazzlive wrote:

Um ... unless I miss my guess, Neiloch wasn't trying to be "in line" with what Atan said, precisely because he disagrees with Atan's statement that there are 6 classes for each role. In fact, I think that was pretty clearly stated by the "but there isn't 6 of each line," so I'm really not sure what your complaint is.

My statement had nothing to do with classes, only that there are 6 slots for each role, and we only need 4 fighter roles at most, so those extra slots go to the utility role.

My statement was a generalization to illistrate that there isn't exactly anything wrong with how things are, and the arguement for 8 dps vs 8 utility, is just an arguement to say dps is more fun to play so let us bring more.

Yimway · 07-31-2012, 06:40 PM

Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:

I'd never call summoners utility. The ones i've seen that play well parse a soft T1, better on AE fights. Hearts and shards tend to be 'last resort' items. ET is real nice though. They have some but again i would never categorize them with enchanters or bards.

I consider them as t2 with utility, but I don't consider the hearts and shards really. I consider that I'll drop a conjy in g3 when I don't have the 4th bard, and his stoneskins will contribute to the overall survivability of that group, in the same way the dirge would have. They'll also bump some mits, have a littlebit of group dps, yadda yadda.

They aren't as nice as a bard in most cases, but when I'm short a bard the conjy can fill that slot reasonably well.

Hennyo · 07-31-2012, 07:12 PM

I started to give this some serious thought on what would work, and what wouldn't, and I came up with some ideas. First bards, they would need to make all group buffs, both static and temporary, such as VC full raid wide. Then they would need to make all static concentration buffs into timed buffs that persisted through death while their time was going. When a bard casts a static concentration buff it overwrites the oldest concentration slot used by a static timed buff. Make the static time a buff or "song" last something reasonable like 2 or 3 minutes each. Now to fix the single target buffs they would need to be straight across the board doubled in the number allowed, so if there is 2 now there is 4. There would need to be no restrictions on where you could put the buffs. Single target buffs would need to have extremely long cast ranges, like 120m, and also not require any line of sight to cast it on a target. Single target buffs would need to be recast on death like they currently are. Dirges would need their rez cast time and reuse time along with the rez sickness cure all cut in half. Also increase the rez distance by like double. The dirge stoneskin buff would need to only trigger off of melee attacks, and only stoneskin melee attacks, even if a trigger is up when a non melee damage happens.

Troubadours would need to have the duration of their jcap doubled along with its immunity timer, and its cast range doubled.

EDIT: Both CoB, and PoM would need to be made into temporary buffs that could be maintained about 70 percent of the time by a single bard, to discourage using a second bard for these buffs alone, but still not make them permanent always on buffs either.

This would greatly increase the utility level of each bard, but it would really cut back on the usefulness of having more than one of each bard in a raid. This change would probably also lower bard dps a little bit, but increase raid dps a fair amount, obviously encounters in the future would have to be adjusted to this new "norm" in dps. This is obviously my rough draft for an idea to fix the four bard raid issue there currently is, and if anyone had something to say about my idea, I would be glad to hear it.

Tigerr · 07-31-2012, 07:47 PM

Explain to me, why is it moronic... Why should 1 dirge and 1 troub be enough to buff the WHOLE raid?. Your proposed change is going to hurt guilds more than help them. Sure, if a guild runs with 1 bard, its great to have the buffs but, the guilds that are running 4 are going to say "Lolget2moret1dpsinhere" and get rid of the other 2 bards. This might sound elitist but, if you are running with 1 bard to begin with, you are probably not doing content that requires a perfect setup of utility. Utility is rare as it is, you'd be helping the casual guilds that well, wouldn't need the help because these are the same people that want to stack 12 fighters for dps. With the way bards are right now, they are in demand.... if this were to change ( sony is gullible, posts like this break classes) You can grab 1 bard and grab more dps in other places. People are complaining that 4 tanks in a raid is not enough and there should be more... What happened after that?.. tanks were given a dps stance because sony thought guilds would start bringing 12 fighters to a raid. Once again, stop trying to change how the community sets up their raids.... You are basing it off what people do... In all technicality, you can bring WAYY more than 4 bards and 4 chanters.... guilds just chose not to. There is no reason why 1 bard should be able to buff the whole raid, its a good idea, i'd personally like it but, I don't think it'd work out. It is working fine as it is right now, just because not alot of people play troubs + dirges, doesn't mean that sony needs to rework the system. btw, remove reckless stance.... lol at fighters thinking they will get dps spots.

Tigerr · 07-31-2012, 07:49 PM

Seriously though, changes like this is what breaks the game...Very sad to hear that you don't have enough utility but, game mechanics shouldn't change just because some guilds cant get troubs/dirges.

Hennyo · 07-31-2012, 08:18 PM

Tigerr wrote:

Seriously though, changes like this is what breaks the game...Very sad to hear that you don't have enough utility but, game mechanics shouldn't change just because some guilds cant get troubs/dirges.

I can say I certainly understand this concern, and also that you would think that my guild has some sort of utility shortage, which it certainly does not. You are also correct that guilds would go lets get some more dps in here instantly.

If changes of the sort happened that were outlined in my idea, to both bards and enchanters, there would obviously need to be something done for existing players of those classes. The only semi fair compensation that I could think of would be a class change token given to all bards and enchanters that would allow them to become any other class with the same level of AA's and masters, along with the full unatunment of all their gear. This would obviously still be rough on a lot of players, and their gear would be useless if they switched outside of their archetype, but personally I really can't think of any way to make it more fair without being unreasonable.

On a slightly separate note, if they changed bards and enchanters to something similar to my idea, I would imagine a high level raid force basic ideal setup would look something like the following.

1. Guardian, Monk, Defiler, Templar, Coercer, Dirge2. Brusier, Inquistor, Mystic, Troubadour, Illusionist, Swashbuckler3. (Paladin / Berserker), Warden, Beastlord, Ranger, Assasin, Brigand4. Fury, Wizard, Warlock, Necromancer, Conjuror, Shadowknight

There are a lot of classes in here that could be replaced with one class or another, or switched with one spot in a raid with another one. While I may think it is obvious, the SK in group 4 in this setup is used as a DPS class.

Davngr · 07-31-2012, 08:34 PM

Tigerr wrote:

Explain to me, why is it moronic... Why should 1 dirge and 1 troub be enough to buff the WHOLE raid?. Your proposed change is going to hurt guilds more than help them. Sure, if a guild runs with 1 bard, its great to have the buffs but, the guilds that are running 4 are going to say "Lolget2moret1dpsinhere" and get rid of the other 2 bards. This might sound elitist but, if you are running with 1 bard to begin with, you are probably not doing content that requires a perfect setup of utility. Utility is rare as it is, you'd be helping the casual guilds that well, wouldn't need the help because these are the same people that want to stack 12 fighters for dps. With the way bards are right now, they are in demand.... if this were to change ( sony is gullible, posts like this break classes) You can grab 1 bard and grab more dps in other places. People are complaining that 4 tanks in a raid is not enough and there should be more... What happened after that?.. tanks were given a dps stance because sony thought guilds would start bringing 12 fighters to a raid. Once again, stop trying to change how the community sets up their raids.... You are basing it off what people do... In all technicality, you can bring WAYY more than 4 bards and 4 chanters.... guilds just chose not to. There is no reason why 1 bard should be able to buff the whole raid, its a good idea, i'd personally like it but, I don't think it'd work out. It is working fine as it is right now, just because not alot of people play troubs + dirges, doesn't mean that sony needs to rework the system. btw, remove reckless stance.... lol at fighters thinking they will get dps spots.

if you want to bring 12 bards and chanters you can. the thing is that you won't have to. in my raid i'm usually, wait.. i mean regularly with out buffs that my class requires to be at top effectiveness and now add to that the fact that most of the chanters and bards in my raid would be perfectly happy playing another class and you come to the realization that there's no reason to be pigeon held to these set ups.

Jeepned2 · 07-31-2012, 09:04 PM

Davngr wrote:

if you want to bring 12 bards and chanters you can. the thing is that you won't have to. in my raid i'm usually, wait.. i mean regularly with out buffs that my class requires to be at top effectiveness and now add to that the fact that most of the chanters and bards in my raid would be perfectly happy playing another class and you come to the realization that there's no reason to be pigeon held to these set ups.

Yea, I am perfectly happy to play my now super uber SK. I have an idea, give all my utility to the Dirge, make all buffs raid wide and get rid of the Troub all together (but let us switch our troubs to any class we want). Now you'll be a little closer to what a bunch of you think we need, one of each class in a raid (no matter how illogical that is). I could also switch to my Monk, or my Coercer or my Necro, don't matter, I like playing all of them.

Tigerr · 07-31-2012, 09:11 PM

So your argument is that bards would like to play other classes?... Therefore sony should make it so 1 bard can buff the whole raid?... What are you even saying, people set up raids the way THEY want... There doesn't need to be 24 DIFFERENT classes on raid for it to function, seems like certain people are upset that their classes are not needed.. Sorry but, the bards I know love their class.... The whole "they'd love to switch to another class, lets give 1 bard ability to buff the whole raid" is idiotic. I prefer to play the game MY way... Not in a way where sony MAKES us pick certain classes to play with. Leave utility alone, seriously... if your dirges/troubs dont like it, noone is forcing them to keep playing.

Freejazzlive · 07-31-2012, 09:59 PM

Tigerr wrote:

So your argument is that bards would like to play other classes?... Therefore sony should make it so 1 bard can buff the whole raid?...

Not ONE Bard, but TWO: one Dirge, one Troubie.

As for whether or not people would like to play other classes ... well, maybe OTHER people would, but IMO Troubieness is next to GODliness, & I've little interest in playing anything else. Cuz I like BIG buffs, & I can not lie, all you OTHER buffers can deny ....

Troubie for life, yo.

Juggercap · 07-31-2012, 10:17 PM

Some of this discussion is funny. My dirge is by far my favorite character...and I don't get to play him for raids because I'm usually asked to use the warden.

I love everything about the utility part of the class. It's interesting to play when whatever hits the fan.

I don't get the argument about people not liking to be utility.

07-31-2012, 03:08 PM	#2
Davngr Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 76	Luhai wrote: Please do not quote forum violations i don't see the complain in this thread. i'm asking for raid wide/cross group buffs. you know.. a worth while expenditure of dev time!

07-31-2012, 03:27 PM	#3
Freejazzlive Loremaster Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends Posts: 704	This Troubie agrees with the OP. __________________ Talechaser Tuckpaw, Troubadour of Freeport Golgi Apparati, Swashbuckler of Freeport Aheedi Adaephon, Warlock of Freeport

07-31-2012, 04:01 PM	#4
Neiloch Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,430	I also agree. The demand for utility classes is far too high for how many of them there are. __________________

07-31-2012, 04:07 PM	#5
Yimway Loremaster Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 9,707	Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2: Tank Heal Dps Utility If you broke it even thats 6 of each. I see no reason to bring more than 4 tanks, so thats 2 more that gets carried over to the utility collumn. I'm not sure anything is really broken here. Yeah, I'd rather those 2 carry over to the dps column instead, but they've yet proven they can make that work. Even when they took a serious effort at it, the really important buffs were not duplicated enough that anyone would seriously decide to bring less utility. The min/maxers were going to continue to bring just as much utility with the proposed change, it just didn't penalize those guilds who can't field the utility classes quite as hard. SoE has shown they are unwilling to buff the utility classes enough to lower the desired number, so I think we're stuck with what we have. BTW, remove reckless stance, kk thx. __________________

07-31-2012, 04:28 PM	#6
Neiloch Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,430	Atan@Unrest wrote: Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2: Tank - 6 Heal - 6 Dps - 8 Utility - 4 If you broke it even thats 6 of each. But there isn't 6 of each. So unless they are going to start giving out some more stances, specifically utility stances to DPS, they need to make it so the ideal setup doesn't include 8 slots for 4 classes. Obviously this won't bring about perfectly even distribution, if that should even be a goal, but it would open up more room in raids for roles that have a poor class/slot ratio in comparison. __________________

07-31-2012, 02:45 PM	#1
Davngr Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 76	the tittle says it all. we need cross group/raid wide buffs. it's possible and now that all the crybaby dirges aren't overpowerd they won't whine about losing their spot.

07-31-2012, 04:31 PM	#7
Juggercap Elder Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 208	Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote: Atan@Unrest wrote: Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2: Tank - 6 Heal - 6 Dps - 8 Utility - 4 If you broke it even thats 6 of each. But there isn't 6 of each. So unless they are going to start giving out some more stances, specifically utility stances to DPS, they need to make it so the ideal setup doesn't include 8 slots for 4 classes. When you quote someone and change what they said, please make a point of it. Those numbers were not given and are not compatible with the rest of his statement. __________________ ------------------ Run away! Run away!

07-31-2012, 04:37 PM	#8
Shotneedle Loremaster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 695	Juggercap wrote: Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote: Atan@Unrest wrote: Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2: Tank - 6 Heal - 6 Dps - 8 Utility - 4 If you broke it even thats 6 of each. But there isn't 6 of each. So unless they are going to start giving out some more stances, specifically utility stances to DPS, they need to make it so the ideal setup doesn't include 8 slots for 4 classes. When you quote someone and change what they said, please make a point of it. Those numbers were not given and are not compatible with the rest of his statement. Are you colorblind? Also, dps classes with utility stances like....beastlords? __________________ Buffratx - 92 Beastlord - AB Buffrat - 92 Troubador - AB Arbitrat - 92 Berserker - AB Guarddog - 92 Warden - AB

07-31-2012, 04:39 PM	#9
Yimway Loremaster Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 9,707	Buffrat@Antonia Bayle wrote: Also, dps classes with utility stances like....beastlords? I've asked BL's about their utility stance. They seem to claim it doesn't exist... __________________

07-31-2012, 04:43 PM	#10
Juggercap Elder Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 208	Buffrat@Antonia Bayle wrote: Juggercap wrote: Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote: Atan@Unrest wrote: Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2: Tank - 6 Heal - 6 Dps - 8 Utility - 4 If you broke it even thats 6 of each. But there isn't 6 of each. So unless they are going to start giving out some more stances, specifically utility stances to DPS, they need to make it so the ideal setup doesn't include 8 slots for 4 classes. When you quote someone and change what they said, please make a point of it. Those numbers were not given and are not compatible with the rest of his statement. Are you colorblind? Also, dps classes with utility stances like....beastlords? I'm not, but thank you for your concern. The numbers still are not in line with what was said. The post was misleading. __________________ ------------------ Run away! Run away!

07-31-2012, 04:45 PM	#11
Koleg Server: Unrest_old Lord Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 713	Buffrat@Antonia Bayle wrote: Juggercap wrote: Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote: Atan@Unrest wrote: Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2: Tank - 6 Heal - 6 Dps - 8 6 + BL Utility - 4 6 + BL If you broke it even thats 6 of each. But there isn't 6 of each. So unless they are going to start giving out some more stances, specifically utility stances to DPS, they need to make it so the ideal setup doesn't include 8 slots for 4 classes. When you quote someone and change what they said, please make a point of it. Those numbers were not given and are not compatible with the rest of his statement. Are you colorblind? Also, dps classes with utility stances like....beastlords? Summoners are the under-utilized, under-appreciated (due to being poorly played in general) T2 Utility. We don't need less Utility, we need more reason to -play- utility. They aren't always fun, especially when your #1 job is to make other ppl look better. It's a thankless job for all of the parse-chasers out there.

07-31-2012, 04:46 PM	#12
Shotneedle Loremaster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 695	Atan@Unrest wrote: Buffrat@Antonia Bayle wrote: Also, dps classes with utility stances like....beastlords? I've asked BL's about their utility stance. They seem to claim it doesn't exist... More power regen than an illy. Spiritual would be great if SOE cared enough to fix the spiritual primal hit rates (and maybe double the range/radius on the buffs), which while broken make the stance mostly worthless. __________________ Buffratx - 92 Beastlord - AB Buffrat - 92 Troubador - AB Arbitrat - 92 Berserker - AB Guarddog - 92 Warden - AB

07-31-2012, 05:23 PM	#13
Freejazzlive Loremaster Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends Posts: 704	Juggercap wrote: Buffrat@Antonia Bayle wrote: Juggercap wrote: Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote: Atan@Unrest wrote: Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2: Tank - 6 Heal - 6 Dps - 8 Utility - 4 If you broke it even thats 6 of each. But there isn't 6 of each. So unless they are going to start giving out some more stances, specifically utility stances to DPS, they need to make it so the ideal setup doesn't include 8 slots for 4 classes. When you quote someone and change what they said, please make a point of it. Those numbers were not given and are not compatible with the rest of his statement. Are you colorblind? Also, dps classes with utility stances like....beastlords? I'm not, but thank you for your concern. The numbers still are not in line with what was said. The post was misleading. Um ... unless I miss my guess, Neiloch wasn't trying to be "in line" with what Atan said, precisely because he disagrees with Atan's statement that there are 6 classes for each role. In fact, I think that was pretty clearly stated by the "but there isn't 6 of each line," so I'm really not sure what your complaint is. __________________ Talechaser Tuckpaw, Troubadour of Freeport Golgi Apparati, Swashbuckler of Freeport Aheedi Adaephon, Warlock of Freeport

07-31-2012, 05:36 PM	#14
Juggercap Elder Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 208	Freejazzlive wrote: Juggercap wrote: Buffrat@Antonia Bayle wrote: Juggercap wrote: Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote: Atan@Unrest wrote: Hmm, there are 4 roles in eq2: Tank - 6 Heal - 6 Dps - 8 Utility - 4 If you broke it even thats 6 of each. But there isn't 6 of each. So unless they are going to start giving out some more stances, specifically utility stances to DPS, they need to make it so the ideal setup doesn't include 8 slots for 4 classes. When you quote someone and change what they said, please make a point of it. Those numbers were not given and are not compatible with the rest of his statement. Are you colorblind? Also, dps classes with utility stances like....beastlords? I'm not, but thank you for your concern. The numbers still are not in line with what was said. The post was misleading. Um ... unless I miss my guess, Neiloch wasn't trying to be "in line" with what Atan said, precisely because he disagrees with Atan's statement that there are 6 classes for each role. In fact, I think that was pretty clearly stated by the "but there isn't 6 of each line," so I'm really not sure what your complaint is. getting way off topic now, so I'll just say this is my last response about this part of it. Atan clearly gave at least one example of why it was ''not'' 6 of each, yet there 6 tanks are in the numbers. Who the ... brings 6 tanks? (oh wait, reckless stance. Nvm) It's OK for the post next to it, but if it gets quoted on page 2, it's without the required context. __________________ ------------------ Run away! Run away!

07-31-2012, 05:54 PM	#15
Geothe Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,098	Overall,Yes, it is currently moronic that 33% of the raid slots (in an optimized raid) currently are given over to just 4 classes (16% of the total classes in the game).Would I love to see it changed so that one of each of those classes can currently do what 2 do now? Yes, that would be awesome. I doubt that would every happen though as it will take some big mechanics/buff/coding changes to do it, and I dont see Dev time being allocated to do that with the current direction the higher ups are doing with this game. But allowing (for example) 1 dirge to be able to hate buff 4 total tanks, in 4 different groups, be able to put battle cry on 4 melee, in 4 different groups. And illy to be able to TC/IA/AI 4 people in 4 different groups, yes, that would be great and would allow a lot less stringency in raid setups for sure. __________________ Smed: We aren't going to be allowing RMT in any way, shape or form on the non-exchange enabled EQ II servers. Period. End of statement. Smed: 5) This [LoN] is not some slippery slope towards selling items directly in EQ & EQ II. Lie #3: Station Cash. Enough Said.

07-31-2012, 05:58 PM	#16
Juggercap Elder Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 208	Geothe wrote: Overall,Yes, it is currently moronic that 33% of the raid slots (in an optimized raid) currently are given over to just 4 classes (16% of the total classes in the game).Would I love to see it changed so that one of each of those classes can currently do what 2 do now? Yes, that would be awesome. I doubt that would every happen though as it will take some big mechanics/buff/coding changes to do it, and I dont see Dev time being allocated to do that with the current direction the higher ups are doing with this game. But allowing (for example) 1 dirge to be able to hate buff 4 total tanks, in 4 different groups, be able to put battle cry on 4 melee, in 4 different groups. And illy to be able to TC/IA/AI 4 people in 4 different groups, yes, that would be great and would allow a lot less stringency in raid setups for sure. extra hate buffs...meh. I would assume that extra battle cry buffs would just mean heavier leaning to melee dps...not less dirges __________________ ------------------ Run away! Run away!

07-31-2012, 06:02 PM	#17
Neiloch Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,430	Koleg@Unrest_old wrote: Summoners are the under-utilized, under-appreciated (due to being poorly played in general) T2 Utility. We don't need less Utility, we need more reason to -play- utility. They aren't always fun, especially when your #1 job is to make other ppl look better. It's a thankless job for all of the parse-chasers out there. I'd never call summoners utility. The ones i've seen that play well parse a soft T1, better on AE fights. Hearts and shards tend to be 'last resort' items. ET is real nice though. They have some but again i would never categorize them with enchanters or bards. The way they have stats so homoginized they could easily buff utility by just slapping crit bonus and potency on group buffs. __________________

07-31-2012, 06:06 PM	#18
Geothe Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,098	Juggercap wrote: Geothe wrote: Overall,Yes, it is currently moronic that 33% of the raid slots (in an optimized raid) currently are given over to just 4 classes (16% of the total classes in the game).Would I love to see it changed so that one of each of those classes can currently do what 2 do now? Yes, that would be awesome. I doubt that would every happen though as it will take some big mechanics/buff/coding changes to do it, and I dont see Dev time being allocated to do that with the current direction the higher ups are doing with this game. But allowing (for example) 1 dirge to be able to hate buff 4 total tanks, in 4 different groups, be able to put battle cry on 4 melee, in 4 different groups. And illy to be able to TC/IA/AI 4 people in 4 different groups, yes, that would be great and would allow a lot less stringency in raid setups for sure. extra hate buffs...meh. I would assume that extra battle cry buffs would just mean heavier leaning to melee dps...not less dirges They attempted to do this in a Beta (SF maybe?). And one of the restrictions put in was 1 buff allowed per group total (or attempted to code). So 1 dirge in raid = 4 BCs, 1 per group. 2 dirge in raid = still 4 BCs, only 1 per group. Likewise with Illy/Coercer/Troub buffs. Their current single target buffs were castable on one person in each group, but only 1 buff total was allowed per group so bringing multiple dirges (for example) would now allowed 2+ BCs in every group.S __________________ Smed: We aren't going to be allowing RMT in any way, shape or form on the non-exchange enabled EQ II servers. Period. End of statement. Smed: 5) This [LoN] is not some slippery slope towards selling items directly in EQ & EQ II. Lie #3: Station Cash. Enough Said.

07-31-2012, 06:33 PM	#19
Priddles Server: Crushbone Guild: Carpe Diem Rank: Noob Sawces Loremaster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 69	This seems more like an archaic leftover than something that is still logically in the game. Yes, buffbots -err...I mean, troubs and corecers still need to feel special, but there's really no reason for not having raid wide buffs. it's 2012, not 2004.

07-31-2012, 06:37 PM	#20
Yimway Loremaster Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 9,707	Freejazzlive wrote: Um ... unless I miss my guess, Neiloch wasn't trying to be "in line" with what Atan said, precisely because he disagrees with Atan's statement that there are 6 classes for each role. In fact, I think that was pretty clearly stated by the "but there isn't 6 of each line," so I'm really not sure what your complaint is. My statement had nothing to do with classes, only that there are 6 slots for each role, and we only need 4 fighter roles at most, so those extra slots go to the utility role. My statement was a generalization to illistrate that there isn't exactly anything wrong with how things are, and the arguement for 8 dps vs 8 utility, is just an arguement to say dps is more fun to play so let us bring more. __________________

07-31-2012, 06:40 PM	#21
Yimway Loremaster Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 9,707	Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote: I'd never call summoners utility. The ones i've seen that play well parse a soft T1, better on AE fights. Hearts and shards tend to be 'last resort' items. ET is real nice though. They have some but again i would never categorize them with enchanters or bards. I consider them as t2 with utility, but I don't consider the hearts and shards really. I consider that I'll drop a conjy in g3 when I don't have the 4th bard, and his stoneskins will contribute to the overall survivability of that group, in the same way the dirge would have. They'll also bump some mits, have a littlebit of group dps, yadda yadda. They aren't as nice as a bard in most cases, but when I'm short a bard the conjy can fill that slot reasonably well. __________________

07-31-2012, 07:12 PM	#22
Hennyo Loremaster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 371	I started to give this some serious thought on what would work, and what wouldn't, and I came up with some ideas. First bards, they would need to make all group buffs, both static and temporary, such as VC full raid wide. Then they would need to make all static concentration buffs into timed buffs that persisted through death while their time was going. When a bard casts a static concentration buff it overwrites the oldest concentration slot used by a static timed buff. Make the static time a buff or "song" last something reasonable like 2 or 3 minutes each. Now to fix the single target buffs they would need to be straight across the board doubled in the number allowed, so if there is 2 now there is 4. There would need to be no restrictions on where you could put the buffs. Single target buffs would need to have extremely long cast ranges, like 120m, and also not require any line of sight to cast it on a target. Single target buffs would need to be recast on death like they currently are. Dirges would need their rez cast time and reuse time along with the rez sickness cure all cut in half. Also increase the rez distance by like double. The dirge stoneskin buff would need to only trigger off of melee attacks, and only stoneskin melee attacks, even if a trigger is up when a non melee damage happens. Troubadours would need to have the duration of their jcap doubled along with its immunity timer, and its cast range doubled. EDIT: Both CoB, and PoM would need to be made into temporary buffs that could be maintained about 70 percent of the time by a single bard, to discourage using a second bard for these buffs alone, but still not make them permanent always on buffs either. This would greatly increase the utility level of each bard, but it would really cut back on the usefulness of having more than one of each bard in a raid. This change would probably also lower bard dps a little bit, but increase raid dps a fair amount, obviously encounters in the future would have to be adjusted to this new "norm" in dps. This is obviously my rough draft for an idea to fix the four bard raid issue there currently is, and if anyone had something to say about my idea, I would be glad to hear it.

07-31-2012, 07:47 PM	#23
Tigerr Lord Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 125	Explain to me, why is it moronic... Why should 1 dirge and 1 troub be enough to buff the WHOLE raid?. Your proposed change is going to hurt guilds more than help them. Sure, if a guild runs with 1 bard, its great to have the buffs but, the guilds that are running 4 are going to say "Lolget2moret1dpsinhere" and get rid of the other 2 bards. This might sound elitist but, if you are running with 1 bard to begin with, you are probably not doing content that requires a perfect setup of utility. Utility is rare as it is, you'd be helping the casual guilds that well, wouldn't need the help because these are the same people that want to stack 12 fighters for dps. With the way bards are right now, they are in demand.... if this were to change ( sony is gullible, posts like this break classes) You can grab 1 bard and grab more dps in other places. People are complaining that 4 tanks in a raid is not enough and there should be more... What happened after that?.. tanks were given a dps stance because sony thought guilds would start bringing 12 fighters to a raid. Once again, stop trying to change how the community sets up their raids.... You are basing it off what people do... In all technicality, you can bring WAYY more than 4 bards and 4 chanters.... guilds just chose not to. There is no reason why 1 bard should be able to buff the whole raid, its a good idea, i'd personally like it but, I don't think it'd work out. It is working fine as it is right now, just because not alot of people play troubs + dirges, doesn't mean that sony needs to rework the system. btw, remove reckless stance.... lol at fighters thinking they will get dps spots.

07-31-2012, 07:49 PM	#24
Tigerr Lord Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 125	Seriously though, changes like this is what breaks the game...Very sad to hear that you don't have enough utility but, game mechanics shouldn't change just because some guilds cant get troubs/dirges.

07-31-2012, 08:18 PM	#25
Hennyo Loremaster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 371	Tigerr wrote: Seriously though, changes like this is what breaks the game...Very sad to hear that you don't have enough utility but, game mechanics shouldn't change just because some guilds cant get troubs/dirges. I can say I certainly understand this concern, and also that you would think that my guild has some sort of utility shortage, which it certainly does not. You are also correct that guilds would go lets get some more dps in here instantly. If changes of the sort happened that were outlined in my idea, to both bards and enchanters, there would obviously need to be something done for existing players of those classes. The only semi fair compensation that I could think of would be a class change token given to all bards and enchanters that would allow them to become any other class with the same level of AA's and masters, along with the full unatunment of all their gear. This would obviously still be rough on a lot of players, and their gear would be useless if they switched outside of their archetype, but personally I really can't think of any way to make it more fair without being unreasonable. On a slightly separate note, if they changed bards and enchanters to something similar to my idea, I would imagine a high level raid force basic ideal setup would look something like the following. 1. Guardian, Monk, Defiler, Templar, Coercer, Dirge2. Brusier, Inquistor, Mystic, Troubadour, Illusionist, Swashbuckler3. (Paladin / Berserker), Warden, Beastlord, Ranger, Assasin, Brigand4. Fury, Wizard, Warlock, Necromancer, Conjuror, Shadowknight There are a lot of classes in here that could be replaced with one class or another, or switched with one spot in a raid with another one. While I may think it is obvious, the SK in group 4 in this setup is used as a DPS class.

07-31-2012, 08:34 PM	#26
Davngr Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 76	Tigerr wrote: Explain to me, why is it moronic... Why should 1 dirge and 1 troub be enough to buff the WHOLE raid?. Your proposed change is going to hurt guilds more than help them. Sure, if a guild runs with 1 bard, its great to have the buffs but, the guilds that are running 4 are going to say "Lolget2moret1dpsinhere" and get rid of the other 2 bards. This might sound elitist but, if you are running with 1 bard to begin with, you are probably not doing content that requires a perfect setup of utility. Utility is rare as it is, you'd be helping the casual guilds that well, wouldn't need the help because these are the same people that want to stack 12 fighters for dps. With the way bards are right now, they are in demand.... if this were to change ( sony is gullible, posts like this break classes) You can grab 1 bard and grab more dps in other places. People are complaining that 4 tanks in a raid is not enough and there should be more... What happened after that?.. tanks were given a dps stance because sony thought guilds would start bringing 12 fighters to a raid. Once again, stop trying to change how the community sets up their raids.... You are basing it off what people do... In all technicality, you can bring WAYY more than 4 bards and 4 chanters.... guilds just chose not to. There is no reason why 1 bard should be able to buff the whole raid, its a good idea, i'd personally like it but, I don't think it'd work out. It is working fine as it is right now, just because not alot of people play troubs + dirges, doesn't mean that sony needs to rework the system. btw, remove reckless stance.... lol at fighters thinking they will get dps spots. if you want to bring 12 bards and chanters you can. the thing is that you won't have to. in my raid i'm usually, wait.. i mean regularly with out buffs that my class requires to be at top effectiveness and now add to that the fact that most of the chanters and bards in my raid would be perfectly happy playing another class and you come to the realization that there's no reason to be pigeon held to these set ups.

07-31-2012, 09:04 PM	#27
Jeepned2 Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 595	Davngr wrote: if you want to bring 12 bards and chanters you can. the thing is that you won't have to. in my raid i'm usually, wait.. i mean regularly with out buffs that my class requires to be at top effectiveness and now add to that the fact that most of the chanters and bards in my raid would be perfectly happy playing another class and you come to the realization that there's no reason to be pigeon held to these set ups. Yea, I am perfectly happy to play my now super uber SK. I have an idea, give all my utility to the Dirge, make all buffs raid wide and get rid of the Troub all together (but let us switch our troubs to any class we want). Now you'll be a little closer to what a bunch of you think we need, one of each class in a raid (no matter how illogical that is). I could also switch to my Monk, or my Coercer or my Necro, don't matter, I like playing all of them.

07-31-2012, 09:11 PM	#28
Tigerr Lord Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 125	So your argument is that bards would like to play other classes?... Therefore sony should make it so 1 bard can buff the whole raid?... What are you even saying, people set up raids the way THEY want... There doesn't need to be 24 DIFFERENT classes on raid for it to function, seems like certain people are upset that their classes are not needed.. Sorry but, the bards I know love their class.... The whole "they'd love to switch to another class, lets give 1 bard ability to buff the whole raid" is idiotic. I prefer to play the game MY way... Not in a way where sony MAKES us pick certain classes to play with. Leave utility alone, seriously... if your dirges/troubs dont like it, noone is forcing them to keep playing.

07-31-2012, 09:59 PM	#29
Freejazzlive Loremaster Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends Posts: 704	Tigerr wrote: So your argument is that bards would like to play other classes?... Therefore sony should make it so 1 bard can buff the whole raid?... Not ONE Bard, but TWO: one Dirge, one Troubie. As for whether or not people would like to play other classes ... well, maybe OTHER people would, but IMO Troubieness is next to GODliness, & I've little interest in playing anything else. Cuz I like BIG buffs, & I can not lie, all you OTHER buffers can deny .... Troubie for life, yo. __________________ Talechaser Tuckpaw, Troubadour of Freeport Golgi Apparati, Swashbuckler of Freeport Aheedi Adaephon, Warlock of Freeport

07-31-2012, 10:17 PM	#30
Juggercap Elder Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 208	Some of this discussion is funny. My dirge is by far my favorite character...and I don't get to play him for raids because I'm usually asked to use the warden. I love everything about the utility part of the class. It's interesting to play when whatever hits the fan. I don't get the argument about people not liking to be utility. __________________ ------------------ Run away! Run away!