Uh oh...

Ballyh · 03-29-2005, 01:46 AM

Moorgard wrote:

Priest balancing is a part of Live Update #6, hitting Test server this week. Not only are we addressing healing, but also damage output...

...Wardens are having some spells reduced in effectiveness because they have some heals that are simply way too powerful.

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=38949#M38949

jfo · 03-29-2005, 01:55 AM

hey, i'm a fury and i'd really like to apologize for this happening to you guys. i think the one point of reference used in the 'omg! us furies are teh suck' posts was really unfair. i hope they don't whack you to hard.

Isard · 03-29-2005, 03:23 AM

Lets wait too see how bad it is before we all threaten to cancel our accounts. Maybe the improvements will outweigh the nerfs.

Did I mention I have a bridge in Rivervale for sale? 10pp or best offer...

Jess · 03-29-2005, 04:23 AM

Moorgard wrote:

Priest balancing is a part of Live Update #6, hitting Test server this week. Not only are we addressing healing, but also damage output.

I'll post full details when the spell guys are finished compiling the changes into a readable format.

Most priests should be quite happy with these changes, as everyone gets some nice upgrades out of it. Wardens are having some spells reduced in effectiveness because they have some heals that are simply way too powerful. I have a feeling a lot of people are aware of that already.

There are some code changes on the horizon that will better balance the way the different types of healing generate aggro, but those may be in Live Update #7 instead of this one. As part of that, we'll also be looking at the effectiveness of taunts, so it's a fairly involved process.

Ok, so we are about to get nerfed. Big question is, what is the nice upgrades that we get. BotG being fixed? Fix for Agro? I got a bad feeling, I do fine as a solo healer and am hoping that the changes do not effect my play style. I was waiting for upgraded/fixes not for things to be scaled back.

I am going to now be optomistic and hope for the best.

Xran · 03-29-2005, 04:30 AM

Rarely played with a Warden...they are a rare sight. Are your healing very powerful? (people normally tout warden or cleric as probably the 2 best healers)

Xa · 03-29-2005, 04:38 AM

I'm a level 26 Warden, have I not gotten to the level when the "way too powerful" spells are given?

Saturday at 2:00am I could not sleep and got into a group with an enchanter and a wizzy. I was designated "tank." I did sickingly well keeping agro off both the mages just healing myself. This sad and oddball group netted me 25% of lvl 25 and dinged me, and we only had one death.

I'm tired of fearing agro. I'm surprised that I might have a spell that anyone might consider even remotely "too powerful."

Maybe the fact that my HOT's can keep me alive for a brief time is overbalanced.

The last few levels have cemented my anger about healer agro in regards to my warden.

Aaeamdar · 03-29-2005, 05:10 AM

It's mostly by comparison to Fury's that our heals are considered too powerful. We heal for a lot more total (sort of - explained below). The main difference between Fury direct heals and our Direct heals is that they heal for X and then add some questionable offensive short-term ability to the Target of the heal. We heal for X then Heal for Y then add a HoT for Z. On all the spells we use X = ~(Y+Z), so we heal for apx twice what a Fury does in exchange for not doing whatever difficult to measure offensive buff their heals contribute. There are, essentially, three "buts" to this. 1. The "Z" compent for our direct heals do not stack (generally - Bloom being the exception). So really, our Heals are X +Y, with one active heal contributing a Z component. So the total math on Fury vs. Warden heals is not reall favoring Wardens by 2 times under normal conditions. 2. The Fury offensive component is effectively unmeasurable. But that is not the same as saying it is negligible. I think most people assign it a value of 0, but it (probably) does do something to increase the DPS of the group as a whole, thus becreasing the total amount of healing needed. By how much, I have no idea and I don't think anyone has presented data demonstrating that value, if any. 3. Agro. Again, uncalculable (except by SOE or other with direct access to the database and hate generation mechanics). Wardens healing more (by Y + some Z) mean, obviously, greater agro, since Druid heals have agro assigned properly. Presumably, however, there is also some agro component to the buffs that accompany Fury heals. What that is and what difference, if any, there is, is not clear. Under the current system of Agro assignment, I, from an anecdotal perspective, do not feel that our Heals are too good. But, that is largely because I accept that I am the offtank (and sometimes the main tank) for the encounter mobs. Sometimes from teh start, but almost always after a couple heals, I will have to start spending a significant time in combat healing myself in addition (usually) to the MT. If this situation were to change, either through a change to Healing agro or a boost to fighter taunting (or both), then a nerf to our direct heals combined with those agro changes could easily result in Wardens being better healers after the patch than before.

Thibor24 · 03-29-2005, 05:14 AM

I really think that templars are better healers than us wardens.

If there is a templar and a warden in the group the warden only casts when the reactive has run out.

I've also seen them drop better instants than me.

I really had crappy heals until natures caress and thats only useful because i got it to adept3.

If we were such incredible healers that we needed a nerf why are we the second fewest healer class on the server after defilers.

Aaeamdar · 03-29-2005, 05:34 AM

That largely depends on the nature of the group and what it is doing. It is clear that Wardens can generate a higher HPS than any other healing class. If the content a group is engaging allows a Templar to use only reactives, then the Templar will certainly be a better healer in that group against that content than a Warden - largely owing to the broken heal agro of reactives. To answer your "why are we the least common" question, I think there are a few answers to that. 1. (drawing on above) The content Warden's shine in are the more challenging content. As a general statement, the typical player does not really challenge themself in the game. Even with death penalties being very low in this game, it is still very common to see players concerned about dying. People's tendency to prefer the safe means that Warden healing is not as attrative to the general masses. 2. We are broken where agro is concerned. IMO, that is a misstatement. IMO, Druids are the only class for which healing agro is working properly. The Devs, however, did a poor job of balancing the game, generally, with regard to agro, and seem to have balanced fighter taunts on Cleric healing agro (which, along with Shamen, is broken). Regardless of that perspective, the very significant extra healing agro we generate makes our class broken in comparison to other healers. We spend a lot of time healing ourselves. Templars just get to heal the tanks. This leads to... 3. Druids are more difficult to play. That is attractive to some, but unattractive to most. The typical player would rather be easy and good, than difficult and very good. Druids of typical tallent are far worse healers than Cleric of typical talent. So, by its nature, the Druid class is attractive to a smaller audience. Edit: Couple != 3

Message Edited by Aaeamdar on 03-28-2005 04:36 PM

FamilyManFir · 03-29-2005, 06:14 AM

FWIW, a few dev posts back, Moorgard mentioned that in an upcoming Priest review (which, I presume, is what he's talking about now) the most likely scenario would encompass Cleric and Mystic specialty healing spells assigning aggro to the Priest that cast them, and a reduction in the amount of hate that Druid regen spells assigned to the Priest. Therefore, while it looks like there may be a healing-spell nerf coming your way, there may also be an aggro-reduction benefit coming too. Only time (a couple months worth, I'm afraid) will tell.

Xa · 03-29-2005, 06:51 AM

Thank you for all the information, that cleared it up for me nicely.

BigTea · 03-29-2005, 07:45 AM

jfood wrote:
hey, i'm a fury and i'd really like to apologize for this happening to you guys. i think the one point of reference used in the 'omg! us furies are teh suck' posts was really unfair. i hope they don't whack you to hard.

No, they were pretty much on the money. Furies are 'teh suck'. But I think it was put forth over and over again that the Furies were NOT seeking a Warden nerf, but were in fact using the Warden to compare to as that was the other subclass in the regen duo.

I would feel Templars need more... 'adjusting' than Warden's do.

Shennr · 03-29-2005, 09:13 AM

Another thing that I take into account is that Warden's are known for their healing ability and their heal spells are compared to others as a reference. However, we do not get the HP AC buffs that clerics do and we do not get the Godly debuffs that shamans do. In defending for fury's we dont get the utility buffs that they have to increase melee dps in groups. What we do get however are the best Heals. That is not too much to ask for. I definitly agree that all priests need to be reworked but nerfing the Warden's main ability IMO just hurts us.

Vigh · 03-29-2005, 11:35 AM

I am just wondering what heal is so overpowered - so if any warden who has already seen the light regarding this could elaborate SMILEY

(with numbers etc. from first glance i would bet on natures embrace / natures caress but i havent been able to compare these with other healers in the lvl 33+ range yet)

Frametree · 03-29-2005, 12:01 PM

Vighor wrote:

I am just wondering what heal is so overpowered - so if any warden who has already seen the light regarding this could elaborate

(with numbers etc. from first glance i would bet on natures embrace / natures caress but i havent been able to compare these with other healers in the lvl 33+ range yet)

It has to be Verdant Rapture, which we get at 46. It upgrades Nature's Embrace, which we get around 32, I think. (I just posted a bunch of threads in another forum on this, and I'm not sophisticated enough to provide links.) At adept 3, Verdant Rapture heals a fair amount initially, in two simultaneous bursts, and then ticks slowly 4 times at around 224. The initial blast (adding the two bits together) is hefty. I don't remember exactly what it is, but it's something like 1200. It's bigger than the instant heal an Inquisitor or the shaman that has the smoke around him can lay down. (Sorry Mystic/Defiler, if you recognize yourself here. I always forget what you are.)

But the Warden's "big heal" is just one part of the picture. (This was the theme of the posts I just made elsewhere, so I won't repeat it here.) Let's hope SOE has the whole picture in mind as they make comparisons. Here's an obvious example: we have a ward. I don't remember what buff puts it on me, but we do. It takes tiny amounts of damage. If you look just at our ward, and compare it to a ward-style priest, you'd think, hey, Wardens are vastly underpowered -- they're ward is lousy! But that would obviously be a silly conclusion to draw. And it's obvious why: you can't look at just one part.

I hope what's happened here is not that SOE looked at one part, the direct heal, and said, whoa! Wardens are too powerful -- they heal more in a direct heal than anybody else (if that's even true). The whole picture tells a different story, a more complete one.

JamesRow · 03-29-2005, 12:53 PM

We do have the biggest instant heals in the game.

But someone has to have them, if they nerf us then some other class is going to then have the biggest heals in the game.

I think we need them as our HOTs are pretty far behind in effectiveness next to wards and reactives. Our HOTs may not be equal but we do make up for it with our good instants.

If they nerf our instants i really hope they improve our HOTs to make up for it. 140hps every 3 to 4 seconds on one char just dosnt cut it next to the amount of damge a reactive or ward can prevent.

shtychk · 03-29-2005, 09:21 PM

Just interested to see if we get any improvments at all... So far SoE has done nothing but continue to ruin the game patch after patch so I dont have much hope.. but... Well... WE can always prey SMILEY

Sinadi · 03-29-2005, 10:06 PM

It's kind of silly. As another poster said, *someone* has to have the biggest heals in the game. Why can't it be druids? Or are people SO stuck in the EQ 1 mindset that druids aren't allowed to be decent healers, or have a 'better' heal than a cleric? (ie. Templar) What really tweaks me about all the posting though, is the assumption that every time we cast Nature's Caress, Nature's Embrace, Verdant Rapture etc the HoT component has time to work. I've already been in situations where I *have* to chain cast NC and NE just to keep someone from dying-in which case, the HoT component is pretty much wasted and may as well not even be there at all. Of course, *those* situations are conveniently overlooked...

Shennr · 03-29-2005, 10:17 PM

Verdant Rapture at Adept III is an instant heal for 954, quickly followed with a heal for 338, then has a heal for 224 every 5 secs for 4 ticks. 954+338+(4*224)=2188

This number seems large, especially compared to all the other healers heals, but remember, that 224 per tick heal is an HoT. That HoT only ticks every 5 secs and does very minimal healing when your healing a 8-10k tank on raids with mobs that hit for 1-4k dmg. 1 tick every 5 secs for 4 ticks is 20 secs and that is 5sec 224 heal, 5 sec 224 heal, 5 sec 224 heal, 5 sec 224 heal.

My point is that when other healers ask for how much does out total heal do it is large but listen, this HoT does not stack with itself if you need to recast very soon and that extra 224*4= 896 heal over 20 secs is very very minimal in it's effectiveness.

A lvl 50 shaman in my guild who has his big master heal does 1300 + direct heal and has godly wards and every master slow he has. Our big heal is 954+338=1292 followed by an unstackable 4 tick HoT.

I would love to see Fury's be on par with other healers heals but as for Warden's I would say leave them alone. We dont have the HP/AC buffs that Templar's have. We dont have the Massive Debuffs that Shaman's have. We dont have the buffs and debuffs that Inquisitors have that still need to be fixed. We have 1 HP buff that does 1/3 the buffing that a cleric can do. Our Debuff consists of one agi debuff for 44 agi and an elem resist debuff (and I dont even know if the resists have been fixed yet).

I have heard other healers saying they love what the upcoming patches are doing. They say they are fixing all the priests then they say they are nerfing the wardens. I dont know how exactly true that statement is because supposedly all the priests will have some benefit to this patch but why would you say "Yay they are fixing us" to be more on par with that warden heal and then Nerf that warden heal to make them appear even better.

What warden's are known for are they're healing ability, not their buffs or debuffs or utilities besides evac. I like how we are good at that one thing. It sets me about equal with the other healers, that is if all the spells of the other healers were fixed to work properly, and yet distinguishes us from the other healers.

Message Edited by Shennron on 03-29-2005 09:21 AM

Ballyh · 03-29-2005, 10:21 PM

Unfortunately my fear is that we will see the severe nerfs from a couple of months ago re-instated, possibly with some increase in regens to "compensate". For those that don't remember:

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=16&message.id=2340&view=by_date_ascending&page=1

Message Edited by Ballyhoo on 03-29-2005 09:21 AM

Dragonreal · 03-29-2005, 10:36 PM

If they fix the main regens (and I don't mean JUST botg) to heal for an appropriate amount, then we won't need these huge instants.. when I do grps now, I have at the least 300 pts in regens on the tank if not more (depends if I get a heal proc or not). That usually does pretty well to keep the tank going through the fight, but the drawback is that I have to let the tank get down to about 70% hp before I throw out the insta; I typically do regen at 85% then insta at 70% and depending on how many mobs have been pulled at once that'll do it for the fight aside from a touch-up bloom/SW here or there.

The only other experience I can give for a regen being perfectly fine for keep ppl alive is in eqoa.. at this lvl I had about a 400 per tick regen (ticked every 6 secs) and that was about all I needed for most situations.. I did have a bigger one with a longer cast time that was over 500 per tick and at lvl 50 the maxed out regen was 637 (pre-expansion).

I'd say we probably need to be doing 200-250 per tick right now (if not more) + still have the stackable regen from our instas (they may not stack with each other but they DO stack with our main regen lines) to still be effective healers without the 1200 something insta.

disru · 03-30-2005, 12:28 AM

Ballyhoo wrote:

Moorgard wrote:

...Wardens are having some spells reduced in effectiveness because they have some heals that are simply way too powerful.

These are Warden, Templar, and Mystic big "instant heals" They all cost the same power to cast. Can anyone honestly say that they are balanced as is? Even if you can not stack the regen effect of vertant, then it still puts it higher up on efficiency than the other priests.

Message Edited by disrupt on 03-29-2005 11:28 AM

Aaeamdar · 03-30-2005, 12:45 AM

Templars are better healers than Wardens. So what is your point about comparing two spells, troll? Its irrelevant that spell A is better than spell B. What matters is class balance, not spell balance. Furys, for exampled, are completely borked, and not just because of their one spell comparible to those you listed. They can't be fixed by making that spell better. They can be fixed without changing that spell at all. Your arguement - if that is what you want to call it - is stupid. Worse, its so obviously stupid that the only point of your post, troll, is to [Removed for Content] people off. Edit: spelling > me

Message Edited by Aaeamdar on 03-29-2005 11:47 AM

disru · 03-30-2005, 12:55 AM

Perhaps you should take the time to read some of my other posts before you make your ignorant assumptions. I have been fighting for balance for a long time now (mostly in the mystic forum). I am not trying to [Removed for Content] anyone off. When Moorgard stated, "Wardens are having some spells reduced in effectiveness because they have some heals that are simply way too powerful. I have a feeling a lot of people are aware of that already." I am pretty sure he was talking about this one particular spell line. If they decrease the healing output of this one spell line to bring it more in line with the other priests, I do not think that would be an unreasonable adjustment.

Shennr · 03-30-2005, 12:59 AM

Yes, those spells are equal for their specific class and over all. I will tell you why:

Clerics get the HP/AC buffs that decrease the amount that a tank gets hit for thus get a slightly smaller heal

Shamans get Slows and high stat buffs thus decreases the number of times the mobs hit their tanks, thus not needing to heal as much.

Druids dont get either of those. We have to rely on our extra healing components to keep the tank healed. (Fury's being broken on this part.)

disru · 03-30-2005, 01:21 AM

Shennron wrote:
Yes, those spells are equal for their specific class and over all. I will tell you why:

Clerics get the HP/AC buffs that decrease the amount that a tank gets hit for thus get a slightly smaller heal

Shamans get Slows and high stat buffs thus decreases the number of times the mobs hit their tanks, thus not needing to heal as much.

Druids dont get either of those. We have to rely on our extra healing components to keep the tank healed. (Fury's being broken on this part.)

Using a shaman as a comparision for a response: It has been parsed over and over to show that mystic slows only effect a maximum of 20% of mob damage output. Verdant Rapture is 56% more efficient than Enlightened Healing. Those numbers are not balanced. Now look at power cost. You're saying that Slow + Enlightened Healing = Verdant Rapture That translates to mystic spending 328 (90+23 SMILEY

power to a warden's 238 power and still being 36% less efficient. My point is that I think the balancing act is definately needed. Verdant Rapture is a little too powerful in the health per power efficiency department in my opinion. But I do think that regens need to tick faster than they currently are in order to keep up with health per second efficiency. Hopefully everyone will come out better in the end.

Shennr · 03-30-2005, 01:31 AM

This efficiency you are calculating by what the heal does over 20 secs. if you really want to calculate the effectiveness of our heal you use the instant part of the heal which I calculated up earlier to be 1292 instead of that extra 896 HoT that you are adding which is bare minimal healing over 20 secs. Redo the math and tell me what the effeciency is now.

Also do you have to cast your slow every time that you cast a heal. That is another flaw to your efficiency calculation.

If I have to cast the Verdant Rapture back to back within repop time of the spell then you can kiss away 672 health away from the first cast of that spell since it does not stack.

Message Edited by Shennron on 03-29-2005 12:36 PM

Message Edited by Shennron on 03-29-2005 12:37 PM

Thibor24 · 03-30-2005, 01:50 AM

How much can a warden heal over say 60 seconds compared with say a mystic or templar?

This includes their reactives and wards and instants.

The poster who is saying that our heal is overpowered compared to others seems to be only comparing instant type heals instead of the whole class.

So we may have a good instant heal but as a class are we much better compared against a templar or shamen with their whole range of spells?

Reactives and wards can be dropped before a fight to absorb damage.

Regens are wasted if cast before a fight (as well as pulling agro)

A ward or reactive can absorb hundreds of points of damage in a single round while a regen does about 145 (after damage has been taken)

Reactives and wards are much more useful than regens and our instants with regen are wasted if we have to chain cast them.

disru · 03-30-2005, 02:07 AM

I did not bring wards into it because that is about 8 pages worth of information, you can check out the problem with wards on the mystic or defiler forum. For those that do not know, wards are pre-mitigation. I can throw up a 1000 pt ward just to have it ripped down in 1 hit by a mob due to no AC factored in.

disru · 03-30-2005, 02:10 AM

I wanted to keep the example simple. Yes its true that slow lasts for 60 seconds but if you want all the data, you have to factor in resists, casting times, cool downs, ect ect ect. slows are not instant cast, power free, and unresistable.

03-29-2005, 01:46 AM	#1
Ballyh Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 90	Moorgard wrote: Priest balancing is a part of Live Update #6, hitting Test server this week. Not only are we addressing healing, but also damage output... ...Wardens are having some spells reduced in effectiveness because they have some heals that are simply way too powerful. http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=38949#M38949

03-29-2005, 03:23 AM	#3
Isard Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: South Qeynos Posts: 294	Lets wait too see how bad it is before we all threaten to cancel our accounts. Maybe the improvements will outweigh the nerfs. Did I mention I have a bridge in Rivervale for sale? 10pp or best offer... __________________ Malificant 90 Dirge - 90 Carpenter - Leader of Arion Unrest Server Hamsandwich 90 Mystic - 64 Weaponsmith Tenal 82 Warden - 74 Tailor

03-29-2005, 04:23 AM	#4
Jess Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 31	Moorgard wrote: Priest balancing is a part of Live Update #6, hitting Test server this week. Not only are we addressing healing, but also damage output. I'll post full details when the spell guys are finished compiling the changes into a readable format. Most priests should be quite happy with these changes, as everyone gets some nice upgrades out of it. Wardens are having some spells reduced in effectiveness because they have some heals that are simply way too powerful. I have a feeling a lot of people are aware of that already. There are some code changes on the horizon that will better balance the way the different types of healing generate aggro, but those may be in Live Update #7 instead of this one. As part of that, we'll also be looking at the effectiveness of taunts, so it's a fairly involved process. Ok, so we are about to get nerfed. Big question is, what is the nice upgrades that we get. BotG being fixed? Fix for Agro? I got a bad feeling, I do fine as a solo healer and am hoping that the changes do not effect my play style. I was waiting for upgraded/fixes not for things to be scaled back. I am going to now be optomistic and hope for the best.

03-29-2005, 04:30 AM	#5
Xran Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 374	Rarely played with a Warden...they are a rare sight. Are your healing very powerful? (people normally tout warden or cleric as probably the 2 best healers) __________________ --------------------------------------------------- Xelani - Templar of the 42nd Season in Blackburrow Troubadour of the 27th Season

03-29-2005, 05:14 AM	#8
Thibor24 Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 180	I really think that templars are better healers than us wardens. If there is a templar and a warden in the group the warden only casts when the reactive has run out. I've also seen them drop better instants than me. I really had crappy heals until natures caress and thats only useful because i got it to adept3. If we were such incredible healers that we needed a nerf why are we the second fewest healer class on the server after defilers. __________________ Mishrack 70 Conjurer Gloaming 61 Coercer Of Highkeep

03-29-2005, 01:55 AM	#2
jfo Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 136	hey, i'm a fury and i'd really like to apologize for this happening to you guys. i think the one point of reference used in the 'omg! us furies are teh suck' posts was really unfair. i hope they don't whack you to hard.

03-29-2005, 04:38 AM	#6
Xa General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5	I'm a level 26 Warden, have I not gotten to the level when the "way too powerful" spells are given? Saturday at 2:00am I could not sleep and got into a group with an enchanter and a wizzy. I was designated "tank." I did sickingly well keeping agro off both the mages just healing myself. This sad and oddball group netted me 25% of lvl 25 and dinged me, and we only had one death. I'm tired of fearing agro. I'm surprised that I might have a spell that anyone might consider even remotely "too powerful." Maybe the fact that my HOT's can keep me alive for a brief time is overbalanced. The last few levels have cemented my anger about healer agro in regards to my warden. __________________ Xabbo - Warden Grobb The Brotherhood

03-29-2005, 05:10 AM	#7
Aaeamdar Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 150	It's mostly by comparison to Fury's that our heals are considered too powerful. We heal for a lot more total (sort of - explained below). The main difference between Fury direct heals and our Direct heals is that they heal for X and then add some questionable offensive short-term ability to the Target of the heal. We heal for X then Heal for Y then add a HoT for Z. On all the spells we use X = ~(Y+Z), so we heal for apx twice what a Fury does in exchange for not doing whatever difficult to measure offensive buff their heals contribute. There are, essentially, three "buts" to this. 1. The "Z" compent for our direct heals do not stack (generally - Bloom being the exception). So really, our Heals are X +Y, with one active heal contributing a Z component. So the total math on Fury vs. Warden heals is not reall favoring Wardens by 2 times under normal conditions. 2. The Fury offensive component is effectively unmeasurable. But that is not the same as saying it is negligible. I think most people assign it a value of 0, but it (probably) does do something to increase the DPS of the group as a whole, thus becreasing the total amount of healing needed. By how much, I have no idea and I don't think anyone has presented data demonstrating that value, if any. 3. Agro. Again, uncalculable (except by SOE or other with direct access to the database and hate generation mechanics). Wardens healing more (by Y + some Z) mean, obviously, greater agro, since Druid heals have agro assigned properly. Presumably, however, there is also some agro component to the buffs that accompany Fury heals. What that is and what difference, if any, there is, is not clear. Under the current system of Agro assignment, I, from an anecdotal perspective, do not feel that our Heals are too good. But, that is largely because I accept that I am the offtank (and sometimes the main tank) for the encounter mobs. Sometimes from teh start, but almost always after a couple heals, I will have to start spending a significant time in combat healing myself in addition (usually) to the MT. If this situation were to change, either through a change to Healing agro or a boost to fighter taunting (or both), then a nerf to our direct heals combined with those agro changes could easily result in Wardens being better healers after the patch than before. __________________ "I am a leaf on the wind." -Wash

03-29-2005, 05:34 AM	#9
Aaeamdar Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 150	That largely depends on the nature of the group and what it is doing. It is clear that Wardens can generate a higher HPS than any other healing class. If the content a group is engaging allows a Templar to use only reactives, then the Templar will certainly be a better healer in that group against that content than a Warden - largely owing to the broken heal agro of reactives. To answer your "why are we the least common" question, I think there are a few answers to that. 1. (drawing on above) The content Warden's shine in are the more challenging content. As a general statement, the typical player does not really challenge themself in the game. Even with death penalties being very low in this game, it is still very common to see players concerned about dying. People's tendency to prefer the safe means that Warden healing is not as attrative to the general masses. 2. We are broken where agro is concerned. IMO, that is a misstatement. IMO, Druids are the only class for which healing agro is working properly. The Devs, however, did a poor job of balancing the game, generally, with regard to agro, and seem to have balanced fighter taunts on Cleric healing agro (which, along with Shamen, is broken). Regardless of that perspective, the very significant extra healing agro we generate makes our class broken in comparison to other healers. We spend a lot of time healing ourselves. Templars just get to heal the tanks. This leads to... 3. Druids are more difficult to play. That is attractive to some, but unattractive to most. The typical player would rather be easy and good, than difficult and very good. Druids of typical tallent are far worse healers than Cleric of typical talent. So, by its nature, the Druid class is attractive to a smaller audience. Edit: Couple != 3 Message Edited by Aaeamdar on 03-28-2005 04:36 PM __________________ "I am a leaf on the wind." -Wash

03-29-2005, 06:14 AM	#10
FamilyManFir Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 499	FWIW, a few dev posts back, Moorgard mentioned that in an upcoming Priest review (which, I presume, is what he's talking about now) the most likely scenario would encompass Cleric and Mystic specialty healing spells assigning aggro to the Priest that cast them, and a reduction in the amount of hate that Druid regen spells assigned to the Priest. Therefore, while it looks like there may be a healing-spell nerf coming your way, there may also be an aggro-reduction benefit coming too. Only time (a couple months worth, I'm afraid) will tell.

03-29-2005, 06:51 AM	#11
Xa General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5	Thank you for all the information, that cleared it up for me nicely. __________________ Xabbo - Warden Grobb The Brotherhood

03-29-2005, 07:45 AM	#12
BigTea Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4	jfood wrote: hey, i'm a fury and i'd really like to apologize for this happening to you guys. i think the one point of reference used in the 'omg! us furies are teh suck' posts was really unfair. i hope they don't whack you to hard. No, they were pretty much on the money. Furies are 'teh suck'. But I think it was put forth over and over again that the Furies were NOT seeking a Warden nerf, but were in fact using the Warden to compare to as that was the other subclass in the regen duo. I would feel Templars need more... 'adjusting' than Warden's do.

03-29-2005, 09:13 AM	#13
Shennr Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 346	Another thing that I take into account is that Warden's are known for their healing ability and their heal spells are compared to others as a reference. However, we do not get the HP AC buffs that clerics do and we do not get the Godly debuffs that shamans do. In defending for fury's we dont get the utility buffs that they have to increase melee dps in groups. What we do get however are the best Heals. That is not too much to ask for. I definitly agree that all priests need to be reworked but nerfing the Warden's main ability IMO just hurts us.

03-29-2005, 11:35 AM	#14
Vigh Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 18	I am just wondering what heal is so overpowered - so if any warden who has already seen the light regarding this could elaborate (with numbers etc. from first glance i would bet on natures embrace / natures caress but i havent been able to compare these with other healers in the lvl 33+ range yet)

03-29-2005, 12:01 PM	#15
Frametree Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 236	Vighor wrote: I am just wondering what heal is so overpowered - so if any warden who has already seen the light regarding this could elaborate (with numbers etc. from first glance i would bet on natures embrace / natures caress but i havent been able to compare these with other healers in the lvl 33+ range yet) It has to be Verdant Rapture, which we get at 46. It upgrades Nature's Embrace, which we get around 32, I think. (I just posted a bunch of threads in another forum on this, and I'm not sophisticated enough to provide links.) At adept 3, Verdant Rapture heals a fair amount initially, in two simultaneous bursts, and then ticks slowly 4 times at around 224. The initial blast (adding the two bits together) is hefty. I don't remember exactly what it is, but it's something like 1200. It's bigger than the instant heal an Inquisitor or the shaman that has the smoke around him can lay down. (Sorry Mystic/Defiler, if you recognize yourself here. I always forget what you are.) But the Warden's "big heal" is just one part of the picture. (This was the theme of the posts I just made elsewhere, so I won't repeat it here.) Let's hope SOE has the whole picture in mind as they make comparisons. Here's an obvious example: we have a ward. I don't remember what buff puts it on me, but we do. It takes tiny amounts of damage. If you look just at our ward, and compare it to a ward-style priest, you'd think, hey, Wardens are vastly underpowered -- they're ward is lousy! But that would obviously be a silly conclusion to draw. And it's obvious why: you can't look at just one part. I hope what's happened here is not that SOE looked at one part, the direct heal, and said, whoa! Wardens are too powerful -- they heal more in a direct heal than anybody else (if that's even true). The whole picture tells a different story, a more complete one.

03-29-2005, 12:53 PM	#16
JamesRow Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 23	We do have the biggest instant heals in the game. But someone has to have them, if they nerf us then some other class is going to then have the biggest heals in the game. I think we need them as our HOTs are pretty far behind in effectiveness next to wards and reactives. Our HOTs may not be equal but we do make up for it with our good instants. If they nerf our instants i really hope they improve our HOTs to make up for it. 140hps every 3 to 4 seconds on one char just dosnt cut it next to the amount of damge a reactive or ward can prevent.

03-29-2005, 09:21 PM	#17
shtychk Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 243	Just interested to see if we get any improvments at all... So far SoE has done nothing but continue to ruin the game patch after patch so I dont have much hope.. but... Well... WE can always prey

03-29-2005, 10:06 PM	#18
Sinadi General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 120	It's kind of silly. As another poster said, someone has to have the biggest heals in the game. Why can't it be druids? Or are people SO stuck in the EQ 1 mindset that druids aren't allowed to be decent healers, or have a 'better' heal than a cleric? (ie. Templar) What really tweaks me about all the posting though, is the assumption that every time we cast Nature's Caress, Nature's Embrace, Verdant Rapture etc the HoT component has time to work. I've already been in situations where I have to chain cast NC and NE just to keep someone from dying-in which case, the HoT component is pretty much wasted and may as well not even be there at all. Of course, those situations are conveniently overlooked...

03-29-2005, 10:17 PM	#19
Shennr Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 346	Verdant Rapture at Adept III is an instant heal for 954, quickly followed with a heal for 338, then has a heal for 224 every 5 secs for 4 ticks. 954+338+(4224)=2188 This number seems large, especially compared to all the other healers heals, but remember, that 224 per tick heal is an HoT. That HoT only ticks every 5 secs and does very minimal healing when your healing a 8-10k tank on raids with mobs that hit for 1-4k dmg. 1 tick every 5 secs for 4 ticks is 20 secs and that is 5sec 224 heal, 5 sec 224 heal, 5 sec 224 heal, 5 sec 224 heal. My point is that when other healers ask for how much does out total heal do it is large but listen, this HoT does not stack with itself if you need to recast very soon and that extra 2244= 896 heal over 20 secs is very very minimal in it's effectiveness. A lvl 50 shaman in my guild who has his big master heal does 1300 + direct heal and has godly wards and every master slow he has. Our big heal is 954+338=1292 followed by an unstackable 4 tick HoT. I would love to see Fury's be on par with other healers heals but as for Warden's I would say leave them alone. We dont have the HP/AC buffs that Templar's have. We dont have the Massive Debuffs that Shaman's have. We dont have the buffs and debuffs that Inquisitors have that still need to be fixed. We have 1 HP buff that does 1/3 the buffing that a cleric can do. Our Debuff consists of one agi debuff for 44 agi and an elem resist debuff (and I dont even know if the resists have been fixed yet). I have heard other healers saying they love what the upcoming patches are doing. They say they are fixing all the priests then they say they are nerfing the wardens. I dont know how exactly true that statement is because supposedly all the priests will have some benefit to this patch but why would you say "Yay they are fixing us" to be more on par with that warden heal and then Nerf that warden heal to make them appear even better. What warden's are known for are they're healing ability, not their buffs or debuffs or utilities besides evac. I like how we are good at that one thing. It sets me about equal with the other healers, that is if all the spells of the other healers were fixed to work properly, and yet distinguishes us from the other healers. Message Edited by Shennron on 03-29-2005 09:21 AM

03-29-2005, 10:21 PM	#20
Ballyh Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 90	Unfortunately my fear is that we will see the severe nerfs from a couple of months ago re-instated, possibly with some increase in regens to "compensate". For those that don't remember: http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=16&message.id=2340&view=by_date_ascending&page=1 Message Edited by Ballyhoo on 03-29-2005 09:21 AM

03-29-2005, 10:36 PM	#21
Dragonreal General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,554	If they fix the main regens (and I don't mean JUST botg) to heal for an appropriate amount, then we won't need these huge instants.. when I do grps now, I have at the least 300 pts in regens on the tank if not more (depends if I get a heal proc or not). That usually does pretty well to keep the tank going through the fight, but the drawback is that I have to let the tank get down to about 70% hp before I throw out the insta; I typically do regen at 85% then insta at 70% and depending on how many mobs have been pulled at once that'll do it for the fight aside from a touch-up bloom/SW here or there. The only other experience I can give for a regen being perfectly fine for keep ppl alive is in eqoa.. at this lvl I had about a 400 per tick regen (ticked every 6 secs) and that was about all I needed for most situations.. I did have a bigger one with a longer cast time that was over 500 per tick and at lvl 50 the maxed out regen was 637 (pre-expansion). I'd say we probably need to be doing 200-250 per tick right now (if not more) + still have the stackable regen from our instas (they may not stack with each other but they DO stack with our main regen lines) to still be effective healers without the 1200 something insta.

03-30-2005, 12:28 AM	#22
disru Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 285	Ballyhoo wrote: Moorgard wrote: ...Wardens are having some spells reduced in effectiveness because they have some heals that are simply way too powerful. These are Warden, Templar, and Mystic big "instant heals" They all cost the same power to cast. Can anyone honestly say that they are balanced as is? Even if you can not stack the regen effect of vertant, then it still puts it higher up on efficiency than the other priests. Message Edited by disrupt on 03-29-2005 11:28 AM __________________ Please go voice your disdain for Mystic nerfage here!

03-30-2005, 12:45 AM	#23
Aaeamdar Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 150	Templars are better healers than Wardens. So what is your point about comparing two spells, troll? Its irrelevant that spell A is better than spell B. What matters is class balance, not spell balance. Furys, for exampled, are completely borked, and not just because of their one spell comparible to those you listed. They can't be fixed by making that spell better. They can be fixed without changing that spell at all. Your arguement - if that is what you want to call it - is stupid. Worse, its so obviously stupid that the only point of your post, troll, is to [Removed for Content] people off. Edit: spelling > me Message Edited by Aaeamdar on 03-29-2005 11:47 AM __________________ "I am a leaf on the wind." -Wash

03-30-2005, 12:55 AM	#24
disru Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 285	Perhaps you should take the time to read some of my other posts before you make your ignorant assumptions. I have been fighting for balance for a long time now (mostly in the mystic forum). I am not trying to [Removed for Content] anyone off. When Moorgard stated, "Wardens are having some spells reduced in effectiveness because they have some heals that are simply way too powerful. I have a feeling a lot of people are aware of that already." I am pretty sure he was talking about this one particular spell line. If they decrease the healing output of this one spell line to bring it more in line with the other priests, I do not think that would be an unreasonable adjustment. __________________ Please go voice your disdain for Mystic nerfage here!

03-30-2005, 12:59 AM	#25
Shennr Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 346	Yes, those spells are equal for their specific class and over all. I will tell you why: Clerics get the HP/AC buffs that decrease the amount that a tank gets hit for thus get a slightly smaller heal Shamans get Slows and high stat buffs thus decreases the number of times the mobs hit their tanks, thus not needing to heal as much. Druids dont get either of those. We have to rely on our extra healing components to keep the tank healed. (Fury's being broken on this part.)

03-30-2005, 01:21 AM	#26
disru Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 285	Shennron wrote: Yes, those spells are equal for their specific class and over all. I will tell you why: Clerics get the HP/AC buffs that decrease the amount that a tank gets hit for thus get a slightly smaller heal Shamans get Slows and high stat buffs thus decreases the number of times the mobs hit their tanks, thus not needing to heal as much. Druids dont get either of those. We have to rely on our extra healing components to keep the tank healed. (Fury's being broken on this part.) Using a shaman as a comparision for a response: It has been parsed over and over to show that mystic slows only effect a maximum of 20% of mob damage output. Verdant Rapture is 56% more efficient than Enlightened Healing. Those numbers are not balanced. Now look at power cost. You're saying that Slow + Enlightened Healing = Verdant Rapture That translates to mystic spending 328 (90+23 power to a warden's 238 power and still being 36% less efficient. My point is that I think the balancing act is definately needed. Verdant Rapture is a little too powerful in the health per power efficiency department in my opinion. But I do think that regens need to tick faster than they currently are in order to keep up with health per second efficiency. Hopefully everyone will come out better in the end. __________________ Please go voice your disdain for Mystic nerfage here!

03-30-2005, 01:31 AM	#27
Shennr Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 346	This efficiency you are calculating by what the heal does over 20 secs. if you really want to calculate the effectiveness of our heal you use the instant part of the heal which I calculated up earlier to be 1292 instead of that extra 896 HoT that you are adding which is bare minimal healing over 20 secs. Redo the math and tell me what the effeciency is now. Also do you have to cast your slow every time that you cast a heal. That is another flaw to your efficiency calculation. If I have to cast the Verdant Rapture back to back within repop time of the spell then you can kiss away 672 health away from the first cast of that spell since it does not stack. Message Edited by Shennron on 03-29-2005 12:36 PM Message Edited by Shennron on 03-29-2005 12:37 PM

03-30-2005, 01:50 AM	#28
Thibor24 Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 180	How much can a warden heal over say 60 seconds compared with say a mystic or templar? This includes their reactives and wards and instants. The poster who is saying that our heal is overpowered compared to others seems to be only comparing instant type heals instead of the whole class. So we may have a good instant heal but as a class are we much better compared against a templar or shamen with their whole range of spells? Reactives and wards can be dropped before a fight to absorb damage. Regens are wasted if cast before a fight (as well as pulling agro) A ward or reactive can absorb hundreds of points of damage in a single round while a regen does about 145 (after damage has been taken) Reactives and wards are much more useful than regens and our instants with regen are wasted if we have to chain cast them. __________________ Mishrack 70 Conjurer Gloaming 61 Coercer Of Highkeep

03-30-2005, 02:07 AM	#29
disru Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 285	I did not bring wards into it because that is about 8 pages worth of information, you can check out the problem with wards on the mystic or defiler forum. For those that do not know, wards are pre-mitigation. I can throw up a 1000 pt ward just to have it ripped down in 1 hit by a mob due to no AC factored in. __________________ Please go voice your disdain for Mystic nerfage here!

03-30-2005, 02:10 AM	#30
disru Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 285	I wanted to keep the example simple. Yes its true that slow lasts for 60 seconds but if you want all the data, you have to factor in resists, casting times, cool downs, ect ect ect. slows are not instant cast, power free, and unresistable. __________________ Please go voice your disdain for Mystic nerfage here!