Perhaps the single best thing you'll hear regarding furies today

[Kit_Oturea]

Morrgard posted this:

 

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=32490#M32490

 

Perhaps we will be on the road to happiness soon!

 

See ya,

Rakk

 

[MadMyst]

I saw that, and came here right away. Not only are they looking at healing effectiveness, but the Furies were named specifically as being looked at as far as balancing goes. Best news all day? Try best news they've given us since LAUNCH! I was so happy to read this.

[Kyll]

Well, at last some confirmation that somebody is looking at our issues (and probably close to solve them, or Moorgard wouldn't have said anything).

 

 Seems Rensu's work is finally giving some fruits.

 

 

I see the light at the end of the tunnel

Let's hope thats not the light of an incoming train.

[sorinev]

Heck yeah. I caught that balance "Warden vs. Fury" bit too. yayI hope they're idea of balancing is not to bring warden down, but instead to bring fury up.

[Kelahr]

Next live update: Wardens have had their heals removed in order to make furies think they are special. Furies, however, cannot cast anymore, in order to balance their class with wardens.:smileytongue:

[WasFycksir]

Poor wardens....

 

Sorry dudes, it wasn't our intention to get you nerfed that bad.  But I hope you all understand how broken we really were.

 

Just thought I would be first to say how sorry we furies are.

 

 

[Ravenmi]

  Saw that post this morning.. and specifically that part of the post.  As a Warden I'm definately concerned by what SOE considers balancing too, heh.  I'll be the first to admit Fury's need some help to be on an even footing with us.  I'm just hoping for our sake and yours that their going to give you a boost up to help, and not cut off our toes and call us even.

 

  I cant imagine that being the case tho.. Wardens aren't overpowered for a healer right now.. Our specialty heal (regens) are still pretty much the suck.  If anything I'm hoping they'll fix whats broken with us too, making us a tiny bit stronger, and balance you Furies to that level which is where we should all be. 

 

Wardens may be working a lot better then Furies right now but theres still some very broke things about them.  I'd hate to see them just balance Furies to where Wardens are now, then have Wardens fixed and you guys sub par again.  Course from where your standing Wardens probably don't seem broken at all.. heh.  Not everything is perfect in Warden land tho.  

 

Here's to hoping we both get the love we need, you more so then us.

[Kit_Oturea]

---

Ravenmist wrote:

Course from where your standing Wardens probably don't seem broken at all.. heh.  Not everything is perfect in Warden land tho.  

 

Here's to hoping we both get the love we need, you more so then us.

---

As do we.  We want you all to be fine, not nerfed into "furydom", no one deserves that fate.

However your also right about us looking over there and seeing green fields to our mud patch.

Like a quad-amputee sitting in his wheelchair looking over at the guy who just came in last place in a marathon.

See ya,

Rakk

 

 

[wan]

You're kidding right? You think its really THAT bad? I mean yes we are too weak of a healer to be primary healer - not enough useful utility to be a full fledged utility class but... man you are adding to much drama to this.

What I would like to see:

- high end heals scaled ***appropriately*** so we don't have to rely on low lvl heals / training

- buffs increased to desirable levels and effects unborked

- *** procs / damage shields given more dmg 

I'm fine with being a secondary healer. I think those people that want the druid classes to be able to heal efficiently as clerics need to give their head a shake.

If our procs were beefed up that would be amazing. Same with damage shields - give us some usefulness that other classes don't have. If they give us enough brass to be able to be a useful secondary healer while at the same time bumping our overall utility in the form of procs/dmg shield/buffs we would be a well rounded, valuable class. Let wardens be the half rate cleric... just give us something else to make up for it.

 

---

Kit_Oturea wrote:

However your also right about us looking over there and seeing green fields to our mud patch.

Like a quad-amputee sitting in his wheelchair looking over at the guy who just came in last place in a marathon.

See ya,

Rakk

---

Message Edited by wan01 on 03-07-2005 10:13 AM

[jfo]

personally, half second cast time, three second recast on the elixer line for half the power cost and i'm happy. fleshweave @ 145 ad1 and wild bloodflow @ 210 ad1 and it's a beautiful world. better proc rates and an arcane debuff to the intimidation line and i'm floored.

[Tringa]

so a few weeks ago I created another healer to help a friend that just joined the game level. We already have a few clerics in guild, so I decided to make a shaman. Visited the mystic forums recently for some advice....If you think it's all "doom and gloom" in here, you should see their forums (PS so far I'm happy with my fury, only up to lvl 27.7 though. Fleshweave is disappointing and sad that ferocity of the eel doesnt really do anything, but otherwise I play a vital role in guild groups and have also managed as sole/main healer)

[Kit_Oturea]

---

wan01 wrote:

You're kidding right? You think its really THAT bad? I mean yes we are too weak of a healer to be primary healer - not enough useful utility to be a full fledged utility class but... man you are adding to much drama to this.

Message Edited by wan01 on 03-07-2005 10:13 AM

---

Yes I was kidding.  The saying was a joke.  We are bad, but not SO bad (at 35 anyway) that it is horrid.  I just have to throw up winds and renewal and sometimes spawn heal.  I can still play, just not at the level my friend's templar or warden can.

 

See ya,

Rakk

[wan]

Drop the idea of ever being on the same field as a templar... they are a pure healing class. For every bit more they increase our healing potential towards a clerics, it decreases the leverage we have to argue that our other skills need improvement.

 

---

Kit_Oturea wrote:

 I can still play, just not at the level my friend's templar or warden can

---

Message Edited by wan01 on 03-07-2005 11:08 AM

[ShayalynSilvermyst]

---

wan01 wrote:

You're kidding right? You think its really THAT bad? I mean yes we are too weak of a healer to be primary healer - not enough useful utility to be a full fledged utility class but... man you are adding to much drama to this.

What I would like to see:

- high end heals scaled ***appropriately*** so we don't have to rely on low lvl heals / training

- buffs increased to desirable levels and effects unborked

- *** procs / damage shields given more dmg

I'm fine with being a secondary healer. I think those people that want the druid classes to be able to heal efficiently as clerics need to give their head a shake.

Um, see...that's wrong. According to SOE's promises at the beginning of the game, ALL priests would heal equally well; just differently. The fury wasn't intended to be an EQ1 druid; we don't have the powerful nukes and DoTs and debuffs we once had. Sure, I can add some reasonable DPS to a group, but my primary function is as a healer. But it's just like you said, furies are "too weak of a healer to be a primary healer," with "not enough useful utility to be a full-fledged utility class." That begs the question--what ARE we, then?Furies need to be able to be primary healers. Period. That's our main function as a priest class, and we should be GOOD at it. Equally good, as SOE said, as any other priest class.

[Ravenmi]

Um, see...that's wrong. According to SOE's promises at the beginning of the game, ALL priests would heal equally well; just differently. The fury wasn't intended to be an EQ1 druid; we don't have the powerful nukes and DoTs and debuffs we once had. Sure, I can add some reasonable DPS to a group, but my primary function is as a healer. But it's just like you said, furies are "too weak of a healer to be a primary healer," with "not enough useful utility to be a full-fledged utility class." That begs the question--what ARE we, then?

Furies need to be able to be primary healers. Period. That's our main function as a priest class, and we should be GOOD at it. Equally good, as SOE said, as any other priest class.

---

She is absolutely correct.  Wardens and Fury's are both meant to be primary healers, and healers first and formost.  All of the healers are suppose to be able to do the job well, but differently.  Templars vs Inquis for example both working well for the most part.  Templars heal for a little more but Inquis debuffs are better and easily make up for the difference.  The point is, they can both fill the role of the Primary healer with no trouble. 

Wardens are also in this boat, tho the Druid agro situation requires that you have a very talented Tank, which luckily I always do with my guild groups.  With a good Tank tho I can easily solo heal in the nastiest places taking on multiple group encounters at once and still have power left at the end of a fight. 

Healing is the Fury's job, just like it is the Wardens.  Theres different ways to accomplish this job however.  Preventing damage or making things die faster can help also.  Inquisitors excell in preventing damage with debuffs and stifles..  Wardens and Templars are very defensive in nature, Furys are suppose to be offensive (not them personally but what they can add to a group) but that doesn't seem to be working out too well so far.

At the end of the battle tho, all of the healers are suppose to be able to do thier job just as well as the others.  Its they way we do it and our utilities that make us different.  We are not eq1 druids, not even close.  If your wanting a hybrid class like Druids where in EQ1 then your flat out in the wrong class.

[RafaelSmith]

---

wan01 wrote:

Drop the idea of ever being on the same field as a templar... they are a pure healing class. For every bit more they increase our healing potential towards a clerics, it decreases the leverage we have to argue that our other skills need improvement.

---

Kit_Oturea wrote:

I can still play, just not at the level my friend's templar or warden can

---

Message Edited by wan01 on 03-07-2005 11:08 AM

---

wan01, both your replies in this thread are stupid and wrong. First, this is EQ2 not EQ1 and ALL priest classes are suppose to be able to fill the healer role equally...via different methods.Second, this is EQ2 not EQ1..the concept of "pure class" doesnt exists. If you insist on thinking in EQ1 terms then we are all essentially hybrids.

[wan]

You could enter into an argument without being rude and disrespectful Rafael. How things are 'supposed to be', 'meant to be' doesn't  always add up, we know this.  Shay and Raven made the point about base classes and how they all serve to fill the same generalized role (and as such should be capable at it) without being arrogant or abrasive.

I am just stating what I've always felt about this game. You can go on a tirade about how much of a [Removed for Content] I am. (though its not by purely an accidental that our HoTs / Heal's don't add up to what numbers clerics can put down). How this all works out in implementation where you also have to balance the utility of other spell lines that don't necessarily perform the same qualitative function is another matter.

What I was getting at is that adding dps through proc/damageshield etc decreases the longevity of mobs. It's all pure numbers right - in the end. When you say *** 'via different methods' ** - why wouldn't adding a significant amount of group dps that equates to LESS healing be sufficient to make us work as primarily healers. I dunno - you guys take everything so literally (and linearly) and to such offense!

Just a thought.

 

---

RafaelSmith wrote:


wan01, both your replies in this thread are stupid and wrong.

First, this is EQ2 not EQ1 and ALL priest classes are suppose to be able to fill the healer role equally...via different methods.

Second, this is EQ2 not EQ1..the concept of "pure class" doesnt exists. If you insist on thinking in EQ1 terms then we are all essentially hybrids.

---

[RafaelSmith]

---

wan01 wrote:

You could enter into an argument without being rude and disrespectful Rafael. How things are 'supposed to be', 'meant to be' doesn't always add up, we know this. Shay and Raven made the point about base classes and how they all serve to fill the same generalized role (and as such should be capable at it) without being arrogant or abrasive.

I am just stating what I've always felt about this game. You can go on a tirade about how much of a [Removed for Content] I am. (though its not by purely an accidental that our HoTs / Heal's don't add up to what numbers clerics can put down). How this all works out in implementation where you also have to balance the utility of other spell lines that don't necessarily perform the same qualitative function is another matter.

What I was getting at is that adding dps through proc/damageshield etc decreases the longevity of mobs. It's all pure numbers right - in the end. When you say *** 'via different methods' ** - why wouldn't adding a significant amount of group dps that equates to LESS healing be sufficient to make us work as primarily healers. I dunno - you guys take everything so literally (and linearly) and to such offense!

Just a thought.

---

RafaelSmith wrote:wan01, both your replies in this thread are stupid and wrong.First, this is EQ2 not EQ1 and ALL priest classes are suppose to be able to fill the healer role equally...via different methods.Second, this is EQ2 not EQ1..the concept of "pure class" doesnt exists. If you insist on thinking in EQ1 terms then we are all essentially hybrids.

---

---

Sorry I apologize for my tone. Its just ive read alot of threads lately with people defending the current imbalance of tanks or the inbalance of healers by saying..."Such-n-Such class should be the best tank or such-n-such class should be the best healer blah blah blah". It just annoys me cause thats not what was advertised.I agree the Druid DPS/Buffs, etc "should" compensate for the lesser heals but like you said..its just not the way it is. Perhaps in the beginning (level 20-25) it is but it doesnt scale. I group all the time with my girlfriend that plays a Fury and the little bit of extra DPS she adds has not scaled properly with the massive amounts of DMG the mobs are doing. So If I die because her heals just arnt up to par then what good is the extra DPS/BUffs/Damage Shield etc?In the end a Cleric/Shaman/Druid should be able to keep a tank alive...they are all PRIESTS and all PRIESTS are healers. I dont care how they do it but they should be able to do it.. But I am finding out as we level up that its not the case.No member of any archetype should find themselves saying.."Oh well I guess im a secondary ...."

[quetzaqotl]

I agree with you on the group dps part wan01

I picked the fury class on the account i could get mobs killed

quicker (and heal of course )

I personally think it would rock if we could enhance dps so much

that we could be primary healer cause the mob can't hit the tank much

(because of agi buffs) with regens catching up the dmg.

And because of the procs we bring to the group kill a mob before it can do too much dmg

to the main tank.

That would really make an offensive healer and we would be in a class of our own.

groups would drool about having a fury on board just because we would make their dps

rock.

So instead of going the warden (bigger heals) way I personally would like us to buff/proc

bring more dmg to a group.

Message Edited by quetzaqotl on 03-07-2005 12:51 PM

[wan]

I think we are on the same page now.

I get equally frustrated when people's idea of balancing classes is to make them have the same skills/spells (but diff names) with the same playing style. If that was SOE's intention then they would have made priest spells from lvl 1-50 that determine your healing potential (100% equal all across the board) separate from your class/profession lines.

I may overstep myself by saying clerics are 'pure' healers. I think what may prevent people from jumping on me is to say that clerics are the class that should and does specialize in using mana to give health directly to a target(s) (through reactive).  By saying druid/shaman classes shouldn't have equal ability of cleric to HEAL a target(s) isn't to say that they shouldn't be able to function as effectively/usefully in a group. They just have to be balanced so that their utility spell lines compensate for the lack of pure healing ability. Either through procs, slows, hastes, damage shields etc etc.. whatever it maybe be.

This is why I always argue with people wanting to straight out increase our healing lines to match other classes. SOE needs to think carefully about class definition and what exactly makes us different from a cookie cutter cleric with a lion illusion.

So like I said - balance our heals, buffs and get our procs/dmg shield up to snuff.

 

 

---

RafaelSmith wrote:

I agree the Druid DPS/Buffs, etc "should" compensate for the lesser heals but like you said..its just not the way it is. Perhaps in the beginning (level 20-25) it is but it doesnt scale. I group all the time with my girlfriend that plays a Fury and the little bit of extra DPS she adds has not scaled properly with the massive amounts of DMG the mobs are doing. So If I die because her heals just arnt up to par then what good is the extra DPS/BUffs/Damage Shield etc?

In the end a Cleric/Shaman/Druid should be able to keep a tank alive...they are all PRIESTS and all PRIESTS are healers. I dont care how they do it but they should be able to do it.. But I am finding out as we level up that its not the case.

No member of any archetype should find themselves saying.."Oh well I guess im a secondary ...."

---

Message Edited by wan01 on 03-07-2005 01:02 PM

[RafaelSmith]

I think one of the biggest problems is that in fact SOE has really taken the easy route in designing mobs/encounters while at the same time trying to provide variety in the classes.. What i mean is that thus far most mobs/encounters seem to be designed around a EQ1 style of "pure" tank/"pure" healer. This leaves the "different yet equal" tanks/priests unbalanced. Recent patches have only furthered this..i.e increase MOB melee, increase tank mitigation, decrease player avoidance..this only favors the cleric(traditional) healr & mitigation tanks. What the game really needs is more variety in terms of mobs, encounters, raids, etc. So that a decision has to be made on who tanks, who heals, etc...instead we have a situtaion where its a no brainer...again leaving anyone not a Warrior tank or cleric healer in the dust. In "my EQ2" any "tank" being healed by any "priest" should be able to kill the same even con mob and be left with essentially the same power/health at the end. Some will be quicker deaths(ie more DPS/buffs, etc with less "healing"), some will take longer(less DPS/buffs with more "pure" healing)..etc.Thats just not the case. I know from experience that a Defiler trying to solo heal me will burn thru powere way way more than a Cleric or even a Fury would. And in fact the mob would take 2x as long with the defiler because he never had a chance to "augment" his healing with "defiler" things that affect the mobs DPS or health, etc.As It is now it seems Furies and Defilers (the 2 i have personal experience with) end up having to spam direct heals more often than they should...thus limiting the power thay can devote to doing their "class unique" things.

[Raider Hat]

---

ShayalynSilvermyst wrote:

---

wan01 wrote:

You're kidding right? You think its really THAT bad? I mean yes we are too weak of a healer to be primary healer - not enough useful utility to be a full fledged utility class but... man you are adding to much drama to this.

What I would like to see:

- high end heals scaled ***appropriately*** so we don't have to rely on low lvl heals / training

- buffs increased to desirable levels and effects unborked

- *** procs / damage shields given more dmg

I'm fine with being a secondary healer. I think those people that want the druid classes to be able to heal efficiently as clerics need to give their head a shake.

Um, see...that's wrong. According to SOE's promises at the beginning of the game, ALL priests would heal equally well; just differently. The fury wasn't intended to be an EQ1 druid; we don't have the powerful nukes and DoTs and debuffs we once had. Sure, I can add some reasonable DPS to a group, but my primary function is as a healer. But it's just like you said, furies are "too weak of a healer to be a primary healer," with "not enough useful utility to be a full-fledged utility class." That begs the question--what ARE we, then?Furies need to be able to be primary healers. Period. That's our main function as a priest class, and we should be GOOD at it. Equally good, as SOE said, as any other priest class.

---

I think the all priest can heal equally but different line is a design pipe dream, just like the "all tanks can tank" fantasy that will never, ever, happen. Think about this, if all priest class can heal equally but different then monks should also be able to tank epic x4 mobs like a guardian. Do you really want this happen? In the end most subclasses will be better defined and balanced once SOE, and even more importantly, the players, stop latching on this impossibility.

Message Edited by Raider Hater on 03-07-2005 11:02 PM

Message Edited by Raider Hater on 03-08-2005 05:18 AM

[ArivenGemini]

---

Raider Hater wrote:Think about this, if all priest class can heal equally but different then monks should also be able to tank epic x4 mobs like a guardian.

---

Whats wrong with monks fulfilling their role as tank (as defined by the developers and moorgard)?All priest classes should be effectively equal in the same capacity.. all tank classes should be effectively equal..It's all about the flavor of how you do it... druids regen, clerics reactive, shamans ward... plate tanks get hit but for smaller amounts, cursaders use wards and heals and brawlers dont get hit as much...All effectively equal, but not -identical- and having a misconception of the class role of another class just hampers you when you try and work with others... insisting that monks shouldn't be as good as guardians will hamper you when you end up with a monk as a tank... and yes I have a monk... and a berserker and a cursader (and a inquisitor and a druid for that matter) so I am not exactly unbiased here, but the point still stands..

[ren]

I think that the biggest benefit to a Guardian or Warrior over a Brawler (monk/bruiser) is that they can use Tower Shields for the increased avoidance chance along with good ac.  Really, Brawler v. Warrior AC isn't all that much of a difference.  Heck, my Fury has nearly the same AC as my guild's 50 guardian (self-buffs, they beat me when they are grouped for priest buffs), but the parry/rip/dodge/block really does go a long way into tanking ability.  Also, lots of brawlers like to use dual weapons and they get riposted a lot.

 

 

Message Edited by rensu on 03-08-2005 10:15 AM

[Vereschag]

Why shouldn't monks be able to tank raid mobs?  Monks are tanks, that is what they are supposed to do.  The Monk progression is FIGHTER>Brawler>Monk, the key step being fighter.  Just like furies go Priest>Druid>Fury, it's not like we started off as mages and then got some heals when we turned 20, 

I chose fury based on the idea that priests were good at two things, healing and buffing.  I thought that offensive buffs would be more useful for my guild at the high end.  The spell listings I was using to make up my mind did not include hard numbers, merely vague concepts like increases dps or instantly heals a large amount of health.

 

I don't think I really care how the devs go about fixing furies as long as they don't turn us into some half-[Removed for Content] hybrid that can't do anything well enough to be worth taking on a raid.

[RafaelSmith]

---

Raider Hater wrote:Think about this, if all priest class can heal equally but different then monks should also be able to tank epic x4 mobs like a guardian. Do you really want this happen? .

Yes that is what I want. It is what was advertised by SOE as making EQ2 different than EQ1.

Message Edited by RafaelSmith on 03-08-2005 11:15 AM

[wan]

This is where we have the fundemental problem. So many people talk the talk about the 'different ways' that classes are supposed to be able to perform the same base class function. What these people really are suggesting is that they want each class to do the SAME thing the same WAY. I'd like to think that instead of being so concrete and stating that each priest has to heal the same amount and what not, or all tanks have to be able sustain equal damage - is that each class through different means is as EFFECTIVE in a group as the other.

I am no expert on tank classes but have at one point or another have had each warrior class tank for me. I'll stick with the priest class example for this post but I assure you it should in no way be different than the fighter classes.

Cleric, druid and shaman are of the priest class and each are able to perform the heal using either reactive, HoT or ward (edit: additionally you have your direct instant heals). This is what I would call the 'priest' lines of the class that allow for healing (if you consider reactive, HoT or ward really DIFFERENT than each other than you are kidding youself). It is all the OTHER spells lines available in cleric/druid/shaman classes that define the 'different  ways' that the class is effective in a group. Making them simply heal for the same amount is *in no way* ever going to be a balance or a fix. It is the specific balance between the primary priest type abilities and class specific abilities that define the class and hence it's effectiveness. When this balance is out of wack as with furys - it should be decided whether or not the priest type of abilities should be enhanced or the fury line. In my opinion the Fury line needs more work.

I am more or less restating what I had said earlier - but  you guys keep going on like a broken record about how SOE advertised this and that. How can it be possible for classes to have any sort of identity at all if they perform the same function exactly the same.

---

RafaelSmith wrote:

Yes that is what I want. It is what was advertised by SOE as making EQ2 different than EQ1.

Message Edited by RafaelSmith on 03-08-2005 11:15 AM

---

Message Edited by wan01 on 03-08-2005 12:06 PM

Message Edited by wan01 on 03-08-2005 12:06 PM

Message Edited by wan01 on 03-08-2005 12:26 PM

[Kit_Oturea]

Most Furies would like to heal better.  We are over 2 times less effective at healing per second then a warden, our closest neighbor in priest land.  This is just raw fact and data.  We do not need to heal the SAME as a warden, but close enough that whatever boons we get that are against the wardens boons compensate.  I say what they WILL give us because now we are less then wardens in every way but group invis.

 

See ya,

Rakk

 

[quetzaqotl]

Well the devs are going to look at our regens compared to wards etc.

so Im hoping they will incr the regen potency/scaling of our HoT's.

That said i would settle for the heals as they are when our regens (aka wild bloodflow post 40) get a bit of a boost and keep the rest as it is.

So not get warden-like instant heals with big heal procs(/regens) which doubles the effectiveness of warden heals compared to our heals.

But if wardens get that much better heals furies should get (close to) double as effective dmg buffs/dots so instead of a 5% chance to proc something like 10% etc.

Would rather go into that direction as a fury, instead of trying to get more on par with wardens I'd opt to get further apart;

Let wardens be the better healers but make us the better dps buffer, dotter etc.

So that we are a class of our own and invited to groups cause of our own unique asset to a group.

I didnt pick a fury to be the best healer i chose a fury for the offensive promise it has/had thats what makes the furies COOL-factor i think.

Furies should be more about wreaking havoc, destruction, etc instead of treehugging hehe the furies in myths are spirits of revenge/rage

so we should be really good in destroying stuff hehe especially if we are told we can harness the most powerful forces of nature.

Hmm might be repeating myself but hey ehmmm well hey!!

 

Message Edited by quetzaqotl on 03-08-2005 03:16 PM

[Ver]

If they will not be touching Warden (which I hope they do not) the changes really need to be drastic to balance out. Something like giving the Fury 50% more healing power accross the board and doubling the DPS output individually and like 50% more DPS from our buffs.It's really that far out of whack right now imho. The utility spells seem to be about par for the course. Group buffs would also need to get re-worked.Verax