Observations from Ancient Watcher fight - The state of a shaman on epic encounters.

disru · 02-14-2005, 11:25 PM

Overview:Over the weekend I took down the Ancient Watcher with a group of guildies. I really enjoyed the strategy involved in killing this mob. For those that don't know, the Watcher is in the Condemned Catacombs and was a Lv 33^^^ group x2 mob.The group was as follows:35 Guardian40 Fury34 Mystic37 Ranger34 Ranger34 BrigandWe beat him on the 4th try, three attempts prior were aborted due to a strategy not working or key person deaths, in which we would break encounter and run back toward the zone until we lost aggro. All 4 of the fights were pretty intense, the 4th one lasting about 15-20 minutes. The Fury and I ended the fight with 10~20% power each. You definately have to work for your slayer's rings, heh.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My role in the encounter:After experimenting with different strategies for this fight, my best role was finally decided. My responsibilities were "Emergency Heals" and debuffs, or more specifically, Haze. I will tell you right now that Haze was a key factor in our victory, we simply could not have outlasted the Watcher without it.During the fight I:Cast Spectral Ward + Ancestral Ward + Wards of Shadow on the Guardian pre-pull.Used group heal about 3 times when 3 or more of my groupmates dipped to orange/red hps.Used Healing Ritual on the Guardian about 5 times when he dipped to orange hps to give our Fury some relief.Kept Delusion on 80% of the time.Kept Haze on 99% of the time. (there were 2 times that it dropped due to resists on refreshes)The most important thing I contributed to this victory was easily Haze. Without it, the Watcher could have literally dropped our Guardian within 5 seconds. With it, he was only losing about 20% of his hps every minute or so on average. Sometimes the Watcher would get a lucky hit or 2 on him and drop him into orange, but for the most part it was just a steady slight decrease in his hp.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My Observations:I am actually kind of disappointed. Not in the encounter, but with my role in it. I became pretty much the equivalent of an EQ1 shaman. I only used my "class defining" heal (ward) pre-pull to ensure the Guardian would survive until the first Haze stuck. Other than that, I actually only healed about 5% of the entire fight. Most of my time was spent watching my debuff timers tick down so I could refresh them without having them drop, which I managed to do for the most part. I have no doubt that I definately contributed to that fight. However, I feel that my contribution was not as a healer, but as a utility class.

Message Edited by disrupt on 02-16-2005 09:58 AM

Banditman · 02-14-2005, 11:58 PM

Yep - your tank compared to the Ancient Watcher was perfect for your debuffs to make the difference. Tank had a couple levels on the mob already, and your debuffs made the fight workable. That is the absolute best case scenario for our debuffs. Take a tank in who even cons the Ancient Watcher and your debuffs will mean nothing.

And you're right, we are falling back into that sinkhole that EQLive Shaman are/were in. Utility only. Not only that, our "utility" isn't nearly as powerful. In your scenario, a Cleric could have easily taken your place and probably done the job as well or better.

Sad but true. SMILEY

Renn · 02-15-2005, 03:27 AM

*shrug* A cleric could have properly done the job just as well. That's the POINT. You contributed by slowing. A cleric would have contributed by mashing their reactive heals like you mashed your slow button. What's the difference? Seems like you're crying about nothing. You were INTEGRAL to winning. You provided some backup healing, and more importanted mitigated more damage than ANYONE ELSE by debuffing the watcher.I have killed the Watcher with my Mystic as well, and I was extremely happy with my performance. I know that my group would have been dead without me being there, and I was very happy that not only was I able to debuff, and help a bit with healing, but throw in some dots as well.

disru · 02-15-2005, 03:48 AM

Rennyn wrote:*shrug* A cleric could have properly done the job just as well. That's the POINT. You contributed by slowing.Yes, I contributed by slowing, and if I had done nothing esle but slow, we still would have probably won. *cough*EQ1 Shaman*cough* If you replaced the Fury we had with another mystic of equal level, we would have most likely failed horribly. That is the point, we are priests, yet we do not fill the role of priest as well as cleric or druid.A cleric would have contributed by mashing their reactive heals like you mashed your slow button. What's the difference?lets see, reactive is a "heal" and slow is a "utility"Seems like you're crying about nothing.I'm crying? really? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I was.You were INTEGRAL to winning.Maybe, but I'm pretty sure that I could have been swapped with an enchanter (who can also handle utility) with the group still gaining a victory.You provided some backup healing, and more importanted mitigated more damage than ANYONE ELSE by debuffing the watcher.I provided 5% of healing the entire fight, that seems unusual for a priest to me. I'm sorry but I don't like being a 5% heal / 95% utility priest.I have killed the Watcher with my Mystic as well, and I was extremely happy with my performance. I know that my group would have been dead without me being there, and I was very happy that not only was I able to debuff, and help a bit with healing, but throw in some dots as well.Maybe you couldn't have been replaced by another priest, but you probably could have been replaced with an enchanter or maybe even a bard, and that is exactly my point. We are part of the priest archetype no matter how much you disagree or choose not to see it, what does it tell you if an enchanter or bard could have taken your place effectively?

Please do not confuse analytical thinking with complaining. I am [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] proud to have accomplished this with my group. A group of the exact same make up and levels could easily fail were we succeeded. It was truely an "epic" encounter for us that took strategy to overcome.

Message Edited by disrupt on 02-14-2005 02:57 PM

Putka · 02-15-2005, 08:57 AM

I'm not sure why you're disappointed.. why have you rolled a shaman in the first place? If you want to have more of a healing role, you should've rolled a cleric. I thought everyone knew that..

I mean, when I rolled a shaman, I did it because I wanted to be a debuffer. That was the SOLE reason. Not to try and outheal clerics, not because I fancied wards..

Seems like you made a wrong class choice then :smileytongue: For me the greatest fun is turning powerful mobs into harmless [Removed for Content]. :smileywink:

Mystiq · 02-15-2005, 11:38 AM

Putka wrote:

I'm not sure why you're disappointed.. why have you rolled a shaman in the first place? If you want to have more of a healing role, you should've rolled a cleric. I thought everyone knew that..

Everyone didn't know that...untill the complaints on this board were too many to ignore. We're disappointed because this has proven not to be the case. All healers were not created equal. We're disappointed because EVERY HEALING CLASS IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO HEAL EQUALLY WELL, NOT JUST CLERICS. We are not supposed to be just a debuffing class, like the EQ 1 shaman. If that's all you want, then go the hell back to EQ 1.

I mean, when I rolled a shaman, I did it because I wanted to be a debuffer. That was the SOLE reason. Not to try and outheal clerics, not because I fancied wards..

Seems like you made a wrong class choice then :smileytongue: For me the greatest fun is turning powerful mobs into harmless [Removed for Content]. :smileywink:

We all appreciate that each has come to the role of a shaman for their own reasons. I can't tell you that you are wrong for playing one because you like to debuff, but don't come here and tell me or anyone else that we made the wrong choice in playing a shaman because we want to heal. What a load of crap. Nobody with this class's best interests in mind wants to "out heal clerics", we just want what was promised - equallity in heaing. And as Banditman has proven, and as I and many other accomplished shamen have seen, debuffs only work well on mobs that appear weak to begin with. You're level 50 apparently, can you honestly tell us that you have factual, firsthand information stating that your debuffs have a tide-turning effect on tough mobs? Raid mobs? I'd sure like to see it.

Putka · 02-15-2005, 12:38 PM

First of all, I don't see what you're so aggressive about.. well, I assumed that before creating a char, one would do some research about it.. but yeah you're right, everyone doesnt do it :p

Well I wont go the hell back to eq1 because I never played it. I might look into it in the future though if I get bored SMILEY

But anyway.. in the end it evens out. Clerics dont debuff as much and thus compensate with more actual healing. I have no problem with that SMILEY

That's my opinion on the matter, don't get mad at me about it SMILEY

Yes, of course I do have first hand experience with raid encounter debuffing SMILEY

Debuffs make all the difference in the world.. in fact its a real catastrophe if the mob resists some at the start of the fight cause the poor tank is in a lot of trouble then :p.

I'm sorry your char didn't turn out to be what you expected from her.. I love mine though SMILEY

I hope your healing powers get a buff to be more on par with clerics or whatever is it that you want,

Cheers

Jan It · 02-15-2005, 02:40 PM

I don´t see a problem there. The harder a fight is the more perfect you have to play your role for success. But in 98% of your fights you should have a much larger variety of skills that you can enjoy.

BigDa · 02-15-2005, 02:40 PM

Putka wrote:

First of all, I don't see what you're so aggressive about.. well, I assumed that before creating a char, one would do some research about it.. but yeah you're right, everyone doesnt do it :p...

When I got to 20th a few weeks after launch, the information available (including all the archetype-related information from the devs) was very clear that all healers would be able to perform equally in their role as a healer. Mystic appealed to me most as a 'flavour' of healer.

Had they said "well, actually, clerics and druids will perform better in the majority of healing requirements, but mystics will be very good in some rarer situations" I would have chosen differently.

Simple as that.

Lyones · 02-15-2005, 08:12 PM

Its fine to say that he prevented a great deal of damage with slow... but it doesnt' make him a healer... I could just as easily say that my paladin's armor negated 50% of the damage or the bard's haste negated the last 20s of the fight and therefore that damage too... what about the summoner's stuns? Could a group of GuardianDefilerMysticXXXhave beaten that mob? it sounds like from his description that its unlikely... and if the mob had any DoTs then the answer is most certainly not...You can slow all you want but that Scout mob is still gonna quick strike your tank for 4 digit numbers... he may do it slower but if you can't adequately prevent or wipe out that damage then ultimatley you're not a healer... Having said all that, I have to say that in a raid encounter i would not expect a 2nd healer (any 2nd healer) to do much healing... A high lvl encounter requires everyone to focus on one specific role. I bet your tank was hitting 4-5 buttons the entire fight (taunt, taunt, stun, stun, HO and maybe an attack). Your casters were probably cycling around 3-4 spells... It just so happens that your contribution was a spell that had a longer duration as well as some backup heals and 3k worth of up-front damage prevention (pre-mitigation). I would submit to you that a shaman is inherently more debuff oriented then buff oriented... therefore, even if you COULD heal as well as a templar it would not be best for the group because you are BETTER at debuffing then they are and that's what you should focus your time onAlso, realize that you were only lvl 34... the way most raid encounters are scaled now they're difficult to beat until blue... Its hardly suprising then that you weren't utilized as much as you'd have liked to be... flip that around and try it with a 40 mystic and 34 fury... I'd be curious to see if it was a winnable fight at that point (and that would be a truly good test of mystics vs. other healers)

Message Edited by Lyonesse on 02-15-2005 07:14 AM

Message Edited by Lyonesse on 02-15-2005 07:25 AM

Merrygr · 02-15-2005, 09:38 PM

Lyonesse wrote:

[Snip]

Also, realize that you were only lvl 34... the way most raid encounters are scaled now they're difficult to beat until blue... Its hardly suprising then that you weren't utilized as much as you'd have liked to be... flip that around and try it with a 40 mystic and 34 fury... I'd be curious to see if it was a winnable fight at that point (and that would be a truly good test of mystics vs. other healers)

Message Edited by Lyonesse on 02-15-2005 07:14 AM
Message Edited by Lyonesse on 02-15-2005 07:25 AM

Yes that flip would work. A 40 warlock, a 33 ranger, a 32 fury, a 37 Mystic, a 38 zerker and a 38 Guardian can do it. That is not exactly a flip, but close enough.

That particular fight is one of atrition. It took the above group 20 minutes. Damage comes in bursts (big bursts). You do nothing for 2 minutes then you cast your two best direct heals as fast as you can for a bit then nothing for a long time again. Slow helps, but if you had more DPS you would not need it as you would kill him faster. I'd say that any two healers can do the job against that mob. None of the healers would be expected to use their class heal, only direct heals. It is quite possible that the slow is a tool that makes a shaman a better healer against this particular mob than any other healer.

But I'd rahter be better in a normal group agaisnt 4 mobs encounter than to be the best healer against one boss mob.

[Edit] looking the other groups makeover I'd say that ours was a bit better although our ranger provided almost 0 dps.

Message Edited by Merrygrin on 02-15-2005 05:40 PM

Banditman · 02-15-2005, 10:05 PM

Putka wrote:

... well, I assumed that before creating a char, one would do some research about it.. but yeah you're right, everyone doesnt do it :p

You know what they say about assuming right . . .

Eloora rolled a Shaman on DAY FREAKING ONE! She was one of the first 5 (2nd or 3rd I believe) Shaman to L50 in the ENTIRE GAME. Her "research" consisted of the PROMISE of balance within each Archtype.

If you had done any RESEARCH you'd know that our debuffs in NO WAY make Shaman equal healers to Clerics and Druids. I *have* done that research. I've put that research on the Shaman forums for everyone to review and understand exactly what each debuff is capable of, and how that relates to an overall encounter.

How underpowered am I as a healer? Well, I group with a L39 Guardian reguarly. We recently had a friend who rolled a Templar catch up enough to join us. She is L32. Her L32 Templar can outheal my L38 Shaman on the Guardian.

That is a huge imbalance.

disru · 02-15-2005, 10:59 PM

Some things to note:I was leading the group, I gave myself the role I played because I knew the fury could handle main healer better.The fight is a very long one, power efficiency is definately a concern.The Fury used regens probably 95% of the time to main heal.The encounter is not a raid, as you can only bring 6 people into the catacombs, but it was most certainly an epic encounter for the level of our group.The Watcher's highest hits were for 2000 damage on one of the scouts and 1800 damage on the Guardian. His AE seemed to go off about once every 30 seconds and do 500 damage to everyone in range.

Melamp · 02-16-2005, 12:53 AM

Eloora rolled a Shaman on DAY FREAKING ONE! She was one of the first 5 (2nd or 3rd I believe) Shaman to L50 in the ENTIRE GAME. Her "research" consisted of the PROMISE of balance within each Archtype.Honestly,Do ppl really think that the ones who lvl faster are smarter?I mean does getting in a static grp for 10 hours a day every day and grinding from 20-30 in 2 weeks make you the best?static grp mean 1...you don't know how to play with many classes till after you hit desired lvlif you only know playing with a cleric/bard/guard ect....then you don't know about HoTs, playing without mana regen, crusader tanking.all having the fastest leveling shows is high play amthigh % of play time is xpingthat is all that list shows. Bandit you are not even 40 yet have posted 500+ posts..what research have you done that others cant see?I have a parserI can read logseveryone has opinions on if they think they are balanced or not..they may be right or wrong depending on their individual char and who they are judgeing againstIt's some ppl's idea that they are not balanced because the same lvl heal at the same skill lvl doesn't heal for teh same amt.others say they are balanced because of the debuffs we get.fact of the matter is..if they want all priest to be EQUAL then they wouldn't have different armor types, if we have the same wis/power/ and they balance all spells then clerics can mitigate better so they still have a 1 up on other priestarmor isn't equal...heals aren't equal...reactives vs wards aren't equal...they get grp poison remove...So does that mean that clerics > shams?...i really don't think another priest can do better than me in keeping a grp alive..despite the differences...so does that mean im > cleric?talk amongst yourselves SMILEY

Lyones · 02-16-2005, 01:15 AM

uhmm... *raises hand*we get cure noxious...its not just that shaman wards are weaker then their counterparts... There are two possibilities... 1) when you factor in our debuffs we are equal or slightly better than other classes at healing (when you classify healing as "damage mitigation")2) we are not as good at healing as other classesIf its the first then i suggest to you that the nature of resists and grouped mobs means we are the swingiest and most situational healers of the 3 types (and I'd kinda like to hear a dev say that its working as intended)... If its the second then they should do something about itHere's the facts as we know them: 1) Our wards prevent less damage then druid or cleric spec heals (call it 410 vs. 490 for the first spec heal... can't remember exact numbers but that's hedging in our favor i believe) 2) The damage prevented is before mitigation (which can be as high as 60%)... 3) They do not stop any dots (and in the case of defilers are destroyed by first DoT tick)...4) Our debuffs prevents somewhere between 5-10% of total damage during a fight if they land... Given those facts, you would expect our spec heals to be, roughly, that same 5-10% behind the other classes... instead they appear to be roughly 20% pre mitigation and 150% post mitigation... If the lvl 50 numbers are different than that's great... I think its possible that people are deluding themselves, however. Based on my own experience, mobs have gotten MUCH easier in my 30s (relatively speaking). When I was 24 i had trouble soloing a 26. At 32 I can solo a 38 pretty comfortably and 39 if I take advantage of Hero's armor (Fighter HO that boosts AC for 6 mins). I think its possible that some of these higher level people feel they are good healers because they can do the job. I wonder if things might not get much harder in the next few months as the balancing act starts to swing into gear.

Banditman · 02-16-2005, 08:32 PM

Melampus wrote:
Eloora rolled a Shaman on DAY FREAKING ONE! She was one of the first 5 (2nd or 3rd I believe) Shaman to L50 in the ENTIRE GAME. Her "research" consisted of the PROMISE of balance within each Archtype.

Reading for comprehension is your friend. This statement was in response to someone who had told Eloora she should have done more research before rolling her Shaman. It has nothing to do with how quickly she got there, but it has a lot to do with the fact that most of the "research" available to her was what the Devs promised with the Archtype system.

Honestly,
Do ppl really think that the ones who lvl faster are smarter?

Never said I did.

I mean does getting in a static grp for 10 hours a day every day and grinding from 20-30 in 2 weeks make you the best?

Nope. If that was all it took I'd be L50 by now easy.

static grp mean 1...you don't know how to play with many classes till after you hit desired lvl
if you only know playing with a cleric/bard/guard ect....then you don't know about HoTs, playing without mana regen, crusader tanking.

all having the fastest leveling shows is

high play amt
high % of play time is xping

that is all that list shows.

Bandit you are not even 40 yet have posted 500+ posts..what research have you done that others cant see?

What does my post count have to do with what research I've done? I happen to have a job that allows me to post liberally during the hours I work, and I do. Sorry if that annoys you. You'll notice that most of my posts happen before 5:00 PM EST, because after that I'm on the way home to actually play.

I have a parser
I can read logs

Grats.

everyone has opinions on if they think they are balanced or not..they may be right or wrong depending on their individual char and who they are judgeing against

I had an opinion. I set out to understand why I had that opinion by looking at the underlying numbers involved. I now have a very good understanding of what debuffs do. I have an excellent understanding of the mechanics of Wards. All this because of my desire to better understand "why" I felt the way I did while playing. If you haven't read the "By the numbers" posts, you might give it a shot. Its a lot of solid, numerical data about Wards and debuffs.

It's some ppl's idea that they are not balanced because the same lvl heal at the same skill lvl doesn't heal for teh same amt.
others say they are balanced because of the debuffs we get.

As my research has shown, those debuffs are of very little practical value. I've not yet seen any solid research done that demonstrates how our debuffs can be considered a form of balance in any encounter.

fact of the matter is..if they want all priest to be EQUAL then they wouldn't have different armor types,
if we have the same wis/power/ and they balance all spells then clerics can mitigate better so they still have a 1 up on other priest

What does the armor each Priest wear have a THING to do with healing?

armor isn't equal...heals aren't equal...reactives vs wards aren't equal...they get grp poison remove...So does that mean that clerics > shams?...i really don't think another priest can do better than me in keeping a grp alive..despite the differences...so does that mean im > cleric?

I have group Noxious Cure. Don't you?

As everyone has said countless times, if your Mystic makes you happy, enjoy. Those of us who feel there are problems seek only to level the playing field as we see it. No one says you have to be a part of that.

talk amongst yourselves

Leji · 02-16-2005, 10:14 PM

Melampus wrote:
fact of the matter is..if they want all priest to be EQUAL then they wouldn't have different armor types,
if we have the same wis/power/ and they balance all spells then clerics can mitigate better so they still have a 1 up on other priest

You should try bear form some day. Pretty neat buff.

With it a shaman thas more power than a cleric. He also has a good melee proc and see invis.

Oh yeah, it also increase hp and ac, offsetting a the same time a good chunk of the ac advantage of the clerics (granted, clerics still have more ac, but hp/pwr/maul are not junk).

By the way, equality among healers does not mean equality among healers healing.

The priests are not equal when it comes to damage output and debuff/utility power, neither should they be when it comes to healing.

They said the priests would be equal, not the healing.

It's the same thing for the other archetypes : when it comes to raw mitigation Guardians are top dogs, but does that mean the other tanks are not equal to Gardians? No, to achieve their role, which is tanking, they provide either better agro generation, damage or utility to compensate the mitigation difference. At the end you can pick any member of the fighter archetype and have an efficient tank, even thought they are not equal in term of damage mitigation.

It's the same thing with the scouts and the mages. You cannot focus on one single aspect of the class and then claim the whole class isn't equal to the others of the archetypes. It's a sum of abilities and healing (albeit being the more important) is only one of multiple things a priest perform in a group and the other things provided by each priests classes count when you compare a class to another and evaluate if they are equal or not. As it is the shaman have an advantage at debuffing, druids in damage output and clerics at healing.

Don't get me wrong, wards do need to have the ac taken into account, but to ask for equal healing for all priests is nonsense unless you plan to also have equal debuffing and damage output for all of them, and once you're there what would be the point to have different classes?

Banditman · 02-16-2005, 10:41 PM

The promise made for EQ2 was that the PRIMARY function of each Archtype would be balanced across all Classes and sub-Classes independant of any utility that any distinct Class or sub-Class might bring.

So, asking for HEALING to be equal is not at all outrageous. It's simply asking for a promise to be kept.

Balancing the utility of the different Classes within an Archtype is a completely different discussion, and one that should be started at the point of Healing becoming equal.

Melamp · 02-17-2005, 01:04 AM

Bandit1) which grp nox cure are you using?2) for your idea that they intend all priest to HEAL equally do you want all heal spells to heal the same amount for each class, since you don't consider debuffs to mean anything?

disru · 02-17-2005, 01:29 AM

There is only one group cure noxious, its the level 20 training spell.

Banditman · 02-17-2005, 02:23 AM

Melampus wrote:
Bandit

1) which grp nox cure are you using?

Yep the training one. I swear I cast that sucker more often than Ward. You simply can't go wrong with this thing.

2) for your idea that they intend all priest to HEAL equally do you want all heal spells to heal the same amount for each class, since you don't consider debuffs to mean anything?

Let me address that twofold, since you kinda have two questions there even if you don't realize it.

First, to directly answer your question, no, I do NOT want all heal spells to heal for exactly the same amount. To elucidate . . . let's say that they leave Wards alone and change nothing, leaving them at their current value and leaving them in pre-mitigation. If the Devs were to then go back and greatly increase our direct heals while leaving mana cost alone (increasing the efficiency of our direct healing) then that would certainly be a step toward balance. Now, I think a step like that would not be well received by the other Priest classes, so instead of making enemies of the other Priests, I seek to enlist them as allies in an attempt to make our specialty heal more comparable to theirs.

Second, you are talking about debuffs and saying that I "don't consider debuffs to mean anything". This is not the case at all. Debuffs are certainly a wonderful utility that a Mystic can bring to the table. We have others as well. But frankly, so do the other Priests. If you look at the spell lineups, you'll see that each Priest has a fairly diverse set of utility spells that they can choose to cast or not. If the other Priests utility doesn't, in their minds, balance against ours . . . by all means, show me the numbers and I'll be happy to get behind an effort to balance Priest utility across the Archtype.

BigDa · 02-17-2005, 06:01 PM

Banditman wrote:

2) for your idea that they intend all priest to HEAL equally do you want all heal spells to heal the same amount for each class, since you don't consider debuffs to mean anything?

Let me address that twofold, since you kinda have two questions there even if you don't realize it.

First, to directly answer your question, no, I do NOT want all heal spells to heal for exactly the same amount. To elucidate . . . let's say that they leave Wards alone and change nothing, leaving them at their current value and leaving them in pre-mitigation. If the Devs were to then go back and greatly increase our direct heals while leaving mana cost alone (increasing the efficiency of our direct healing) then that would certainly be a step toward balance. Now, I think a step like that would not be well received by the other Priest classes, so instead of making enemies of the other Priests, I seek to enlist them as allies in an attempt to make our specialty heal more comparable to theirs.

Second, you are talking about debuffs and saying that I "don't consider debuffs to mean anything". This is not the case at all. Debuffs are certainly a wonderful utility that a Mystic can bring to the table. We have others as well. But frankly, so do the other Priests. If you look at the spell lineups, you'll see that each Priest has a fairly diverse set of utility spells that they can choose to cast or not. If the other Priests utility doesn't, in their minds, balance against ours . . . by all means, show me the numbers and I'll be happy to get behind an effort to balance Priest utility across the Archtype.

This is a bit away from the OP point, but I just wanted to comment. What bandit says is right, but when I see this 'balance' argument, I always think the same thing. What the other classes (clerics, druids, whatever) can do in relation to what mystics can do is an important indicator for balance, but this isn't about class envy, here. To me, what clerics and druids can do is secondary consideration. The balance I require is on the scales against the monsters out there. Never mind 'epic encounters' - just about every group encounter I have I have to get out every tool in my box and use them hard and fast. There's a difference between being challenged and having fun and being frustrated and exhausted. With my tools as the are, it's the latter case more often than not, and that just can't be right.

Blue^^ group encounter, single mob = ward, engage, slow, ward, DoT, DoT, DoT, heal, ward, ward... dead. Ok. That's the stuff.

Blue group encounter, 4 mobs, 2 with ^ = ward, group ward, engage, group slow, AGGRO ARGH, ward self, heal self, ward tank, heal tank, ward tank, heal tank, heal self, ward self, ward tank, ... etc., dead. Collapse in a heap. Ask group if you can only do single target encounters.

Get replaced by a cleric.

Well, the last bit is an exaggeration, but otherwise that's what I deal with every day. I hope epic encounters are all single target...

Banditman · 02-17-2005, 08:02 PM

Sure, I agree with that.

My point in comparing to Druids and Clerics is that these classes seem to have a significantly greater margin for error on any given encounter than a Shaman will.

BigDa · 02-17-2005, 09:16 PM

Banditman wrote:

Sure, I agree with that.

My point in comparing to Druids and Clerics is that these classes seem to have a significantly greater margin for error on any given encounter than a Shaman will.

Yeah, that is the way in which we are out-of-balance, I think. It's not that we can't perform, it's just that our performance is soooo situationally variant that, more-often-than-not we get frustration, not success.

Personally, I would much prefer not to vary between very difficult and very easy. A more consistent challenge would obviously be preferable.

Vates_Sac · 02-20-2005, 03:52 PM

Well in any case, congradulations are in order for you and your group defeating the encounter.

Secondly Mystics are broke in many area's, and it seems to me that groups need two healers, so I think that our main job is keeping the mobs weak and befuddled, so you did your job, as our class stand's now. Just hang in there, and hope they listen to our class problems. Good Job all together though.

02-14-2005, 11:25 PM	#1
disru Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 285	Overview:Over the weekend I took down the Ancient Watcher with a group of guildies. I really enjoyed the strategy involved in killing this mob. For those that don't know, the Watcher is in the Condemned Catacombs and was a Lv 33^^^ group x2 mob.The group was as follows:35 Guardian40 Fury34 Mystic37 Ranger34 Ranger34 BrigandWe beat him on the 4th try, three attempts prior were aborted due to a strategy not working or key person deaths, in which we would break encounter and run back toward the zone until we lost aggro. All 4 of the fights were pretty intense, the 4th one lasting about 15-20 minutes. The Fury and I ended the fight with 10~20% power each. You definately have to work for your slayer's rings, heh.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My role in the encounter:After experimenting with different strategies for this fight, my best role was finally decided. My responsibilities were "Emergency Heals" and debuffs, or more specifically, Haze. I will tell you right now that Haze was a key factor in our victory, we simply could not have outlasted the Watcher without it.During the fight I:Cast Spectral Ward + Ancestral Ward + Wards of Shadow on the Guardian pre-pull.Used group heal about 3 times when 3 or more of my groupmates dipped to orange/red hps.Used Healing Ritual on the Guardian about 5 times when he dipped to orange hps to give our Fury some relief.Kept Delusion on 80% of the time.Kept Haze on 99% of the time. (there were 2 times that it dropped due to resists on refreshes)The most important thing I contributed to this victory was easily Haze. Without it, the Watcher could have literally dropped our Guardian within 5 seconds. With it, he was only losing about 20% of his hps every minute or so on average. Sometimes the Watcher would get a lucky hit or 2 on him and drop him into orange, but for the most part it was just a steady slight decrease in his hp.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My Observations:I am actually kind of disappointed. Not in the encounter, but with my role in it. I became pretty much the equivalent of an EQ1 shaman. I only used my "class defining" heal (ward) pre-pull to ensure the Guardian would survive until the first Haze stuck. Other than that, I actually only healed about 5% of the entire fight. Most of my time was spent watching my debuff timers tick down so I could refresh them without having them drop, which I managed to do for the most part. I have no doubt that I definately contributed to that fight. However, I feel that my contribution was not as a healer, but as a utility class. Message Edited by disrupt on 02-16-2005 09:58 AM __________________ Please go voice your disdain for Mystic nerfage here!

02-14-2005, 11:58 PM	#2
Banditman Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,459	Yep - your tank compared to the Ancient Watcher was perfect for your debuffs to make the difference. Tank had a couple levels on the mob already, and your debuffs made the fight workable. That is the absolute best case scenario for our debuffs. Take a tank in who even cons the Ancient Watcher and your debuffs will mean nothing. And you're right, we are falling back into that sinkhole that EQLive Shaman are/were in. Utility only. Not only that, our "utility" isn't nearly as powerful. In your scenario, a Cleric could have easily taken your place and probably done the job as well or better. Sad but true. __________________

02-15-2005, 03:27 AM	#3
Renn Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 102	shrug A cleric could have properly done the job just as well. That's the POINT. You contributed by slowing. A cleric would have contributed by mashing their reactive heals like you mashed your slow button. What's the difference? Seems like you're crying about nothing. You were INTEGRAL to winning. You provided some backup healing, and more importanted mitigated more damage than ANYONE ELSE by debuffing the watcher.I have killed the Watcher with my Mystic as well, and I was extremely happy with my performance. I know that my group would have been dead without me being there, and I was very happy that not only was I able to debuff, and help a bit with healing, but throw in some dots as well. __________________ "We r giving u r warning" - Outsourced GM Praithy, direct from India!

02-15-2005, 03:48 AM	#4
disru Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 285	Rennyn wrote:shrug A cleric could have properly done the job just as well. That's the POINT. You contributed by slowing.Yes, I contributed by slowing, and if I had done nothing esle but slow, we still would have probably won. coughEQ1 Shamancough If you replaced the Fury we had with another mystic of equal level, we would have most likely failed horribly. That is the point, we are priests, yet we do not fill the role of priest as well as cleric or druid.A cleric would have contributed by mashing their reactive heals like you mashed your slow button. What's the difference?lets see, reactive is a "heal" and slow is a "utility"Seems like you're crying about nothing.I'm crying? really? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I was.You were INTEGRAL to winning.Maybe, but I'm pretty sure that I could have been swapped with an enchanter (who can also handle utility) with the group still gaining a victory.You provided some backup healing, and more importanted mitigated more damage than ANYONE ELSE by debuffing the watcher.I provided 5% of healing the entire fight, that seems unusual for a priest to me. I'm sorry but I don't like being a 5% heal / 95% utility priest.I have killed the Watcher with my Mystic as well, and I was extremely happy with my performance. I know that my group would have been dead without me being there, and I was very happy that not only was I able to debuff, and help a bit with healing, but throw in some dots as well.Maybe you couldn't have been replaced by another priest, but you probably could have been replaced with an enchanter or maybe even a bard, and that is exactly my point. We are part of the priest archetype no matter how much you disagree or choose not to see it, what does it tell you if an enchanter or bard could have taken your place effectively? Please do not confuse analytical thinking with complaining. I am [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] proud to have accomplished this with my group. A group of the exact same make up and levels could easily fail were we succeeded. It was truely an "epic" encounter for us that took strategy to overcome. Message Edited by disrupt on 02-14-2005 02:57 PM __________________ Please go voice your disdain for Mystic nerfage here!

02-15-2005, 11:38 AM	#6
Mystiq General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 698	Putka wrote: I'm not sure why you're disappointed.. why have you rolled a shaman in the first place? If you want to have more of a healing role, you should've rolled a cleric. I thought everyone knew that.. Everyone didn't know that...untill the complaints on this board were too many to ignore. We're disappointed because this has proven not to be the case. All healers were not created equal. We're disappointed because EVERY HEALING CLASS IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO HEAL EQUALLY WELL, NOT JUST CLERICS. We are not supposed to be just a debuffing class, like the EQ 1 shaman. If that's all you want, then go the hell back to EQ 1. I mean, when I rolled a shaman, I did it because I wanted to be a debuffer. That was the SOLE reason. Not to try and outheal clerics, not because I fancied wards.. Seems like you made a wrong class choice then :smileytongue: For me the greatest fun is turning powerful mobs into harmless [Removed for Content]. :smileywink: We all appreciate that each has come to the role of a shaman for their own reasons. I can't tell you that you are wrong for playing one because you like to debuff, but don't come here and tell me or anyone else that we made the wrong choice in playing a shaman because we want to heal. What a load of crap. Nobody with this class's best interests in mind wants to "out heal clerics", we just want what was promised - equallity in heaing. And as Banditman has proven, and as I and many other accomplished shamen have seen, debuffs only work well on mobs that appear weak to begin with. You're level 50 apparently, can you honestly tell us that you have factual, firsthand information stating that your debuffs have a tide-turning effect on tough mobs? Raid mobs? I'd sure like to see it. __________________

02-15-2005, 08:57 AM	#5
Putka Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 315	I'm not sure why you're disappointed.. why have you rolled a shaman in the first place? If you want to have more of a healing role, you should've rolled a cleric. I thought everyone knew that.. I mean, when I rolled a shaman, I did it because I wanted to be a debuffer. That was the SOLE reason. Not to try and outheal clerics, not because I fancied wards.. Seems like you made a wrong class choice then :smileytongue: For me the greatest fun is turning powerful mobs into harmless [Removed for Content]. :smileywink:

02-15-2005, 12:38 PM	#7
Putka Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 315	First of all, I don't see what you're so aggressive about.. well, I assumed that before creating a char, one would do some research about it.. but yeah you're right, everyone doesnt do it :p Well I wont go the hell back to eq1 because I never played it. I might look into it in the future though if I get bored But anyway.. in the end it evens out. Clerics dont debuff as much and thus compensate with more actual healing. I have no problem with that That's my opinion on the matter, don't get mad at me about it Yes, of course I do have first hand experience with raid encounter debuffing Debuffs make all the difference in the world.. in fact its a real catastrophe if the mob resists some at the start of the fight cause the poor tank is in a lot of trouble then :p. I'm sorry your char didn't turn out to be what you expected from her.. I love mine though I hope your healing powers get a buff to be more on par with clerics or whatever is it that you want, Cheers

02-15-2005, 02:40 PM	#8
Jan It Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142	I don´t see a problem there. The harder a fight is the more perfect you have to play your role for success. But in 98% of your fights you should have a much larger variety of skills that you can enjoy. __________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IÂ´ll be back when combat revamp and DoF beta are REALLY done.

02-15-2005, 02:40 PM	#9
BigDa Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 227	Putka wrote: First of all, I don't see what you're so aggressive about.. well, I assumed that before creating a char, one would do some research about it.. but yeah you're right, everyone doesnt do it :p... When I got to 20th a few weeks after launch, the information available (including all the archetype-related information from the devs) was very clear that all healers would be able to perform equally in their role as a healer. Mystic appealed to me most as a 'flavour' of healer. Had they said "well, actually, clerics and druids will perform better in the majority of healing requirements, but mystics will be very good in some rarer situations" I would have chosen differently. Simple as that.

02-15-2005, 08:12 PM	#10
Lyones Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 57	Its fine to say that he prevented a great deal of damage with slow... but it doesnt' make him a healer... I could just as easily say that my paladin's armor negated 50% of the damage or the bard's haste negated the last 20s of the fight and therefore that damage too... what about the summoner's stuns? Could a group of GuardianDefilerMysticXXXhave beaten that mob? it sounds like from his description that its unlikely... and if the mob had any DoTs then the answer is most certainly not...You can slow all you want but that Scout mob is still gonna quick strike your tank for 4 digit numbers... he may do it slower but if you can't adequately prevent or wipe out that damage then ultimatley you're not a healer... Having said all that, I have to say that in a raid encounter i would not expect a 2nd healer (any 2nd healer) to do much healing... A high lvl encounter requires everyone to focus on one specific role. I bet your tank was hitting 4-5 buttons the entire fight (taunt, taunt, stun, stun, HO and maybe an attack). Your casters were probably cycling around 3-4 spells... It just so happens that your contribution was a spell that had a longer duration as well as some backup heals and 3k worth of up-front damage prevention (pre-mitigation). I would submit to you that a shaman is inherently more debuff oriented then buff oriented... therefore, even if you COULD heal as well as a templar it would not be best for the group because you are BETTER at debuffing then they are and that's what you should focus your time onAlso, realize that you were only lvl 34... the way most raid encounters are scaled now they're difficult to beat until blue... Its hardly suprising then that you weren't utilized as much as you'd have liked to be... flip that around and try it with a 40 mystic and 34 fury... I'd be curious to see if it was a winnable fight at that point (and that would be a truly good test of mystics vs. other healers) Message Edited by Lyonesse on 02-15-2005 07:14 AM Message Edited by Lyonesse on 02-15-2005 07:25 AM

02-15-2005, 09:38 PM	#11
Merrygr General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 132	Lyonesse wrote: [Snip] Also, realize that you were only lvl 34... the way most raid encounters are scaled now they're difficult to beat until blue... Its hardly suprising then that you weren't utilized as much as you'd have liked to be... flip that around and try it with a 40 mystic and 34 fury... I'd be curious to see if it was a winnable fight at that point (and that would be a truly good test of mystics vs. other healers) Message Edited by Lyonesse on 02-15-2005 07:14 AM Message Edited by Lyonesse on 02-15-2005 07:25 AM Yes that flip would work. A 40 warlock, a 33 ranger, a 32 fury, a 37 Mystic, a 38 zerker and a 38 Guardian can do it. That is not exactly a flip, but close enough. That particular fight is one of atrition. It took the above group 20 minutes. Damage comes in bursts (big bursts). You do nothing for 2 minutes then you cast your two best direct heals as fast as you can for a bit then nothing for a long time again. Slow helps, but if you had more DPS you would not need it as you would kill him faster. I'd say that any two healers can do the job against that mob. None of the healers would be expected to use their class heal, only direct heals. It is quite possible that the slow is a tool that makes a shaman a better healer against this particular mob than any other healer. But I'd rahter be better in a normal group agaisnt 4 mobs encounter than to be the best healer against one boss mob. [Edit] looking the other groups makeover I'd say that ours was a bit better although our ranger provided almost 0 dps. Message Edited by Merrygrin on 02-15-2005 05:40 PM

02-15-2005, 10:05 PM	#12
Banditman Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,459	Putka wrote: ... well, I assumed that before creating a char, one would do some research about it.. but yeah you're right, everyone doesnt do it :p You know what they say about assuming right . . . Eloora rolled a Shaman on DAY FREAKING ONE! She was one of the first 5 (2nd or 3rd I believe) Shaman to L50 in the ENTIRE GAME. Her "research" consisted of the PROMISE of balance within each Archtype. If you had done any RESEARCH you'd know that our debuffs in NO WAY make Shaman equal healers to Clerics and Druids. I have done that research. I've put that research on the Shaman forums for everyone to review and understand exactly what each debuff is capable of, and how that relates to an overall encounter. How underpowered am I as a healer? Well, I group with a L39 Guardian reguarly. We recently had a friend who rolled a Templar catch up enough to join us. She is L32. Her L32 Templar can outheal my L38 Shaman on the Guardian. That is a huge imbalance. __________________

02-15-2005, 10:59 PM	#13
disru Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 285	Some things to note:I was leading the group, I gave myself the role I played because I knew the fury could handle main healer better.The fight is a very long one, power efficiency is definately a concern.The Fury used regens probably 95% of the time to main heal.The encounter is not a raid, as you can only bring 6 people into the catacombs, but it was most certainly an epic encounter for the level of our group.The Watcher's highest hits were for 2000 damage on one of the scouts and 1800 damage on the Guardian. His AE seemed to go off about once every 30 seconds and do 500 damage to everyone in range. __________________ Please go voice your disdain for Mystic nerfage here!

02-16-2005, 12:53 AM	#14
Melamp Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 170	Eloora rolled a Shaman on DAY FREAKING ONE! She was one of the first 5 (2nd or 3rd I believe) Shaman to L50 in the ENTIRE GAME. Her "research" consisted of the PROMISE of balance within each Archtype.Honestly,Do ppl really think that the ones who lvl faster are smarter?I mean does getting in a static grp for 10 hours a day every day and grinding from 20-30 in 2 weeks make you the best?static grp mean 1...you don't know how to play with many classes till after you hit desired lvlif you only know playing with a cleric/bard/guard ect....then you don't know about HoTs, playing without mana regen, crusader tanking.all having the fastest leveling shows is high play amthigh % of play time is xpingthat is all that list shows. Bandit you are not even 40 yet have posted 500+ posts..what research have you done that others cant see?I have a parserI can read logseveryone has opinions on if they think they are balanced or not..they may be right or wrong depending on their individual char and who they are judgeing againstIt's some ppl's idea that they are not balanced because the same lvl heal at the same skill lvl doesn't heal for teh same amt.others say they are balanced because of the debuffs we get.fact of the matter is..if they want all priest to be EQUAL then they wouldn't have different armor types, if we have the same wis/power/ and they balance all spells then clerics can mitigate better so they still have a 1 up on other priestarmor isn't equal...heals aren't equal...reactives vs wards aren't equal...they get grp poison remove...So does that mean that clerics > shams?...i really don't think another priest can do better than me in keeping a grp alive..despite the differences...so does that mean im > cleric?talk amongst yourselves

02-16-2005, 01:15 AM	#15
Lyones Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 57	uhmm... raises handwe get cure noxious...its not just that shaman wards are weaker then their counterparts... There are two possibilities... 1) when you factor in our debuffs we are equal or slightly better than other classes at healing (when you classify healing as "damage mitigation")2) we are not as good at healing as other classesIf its the first then i suggest to you that the nature of resists and grouped mobs means we are the swingiest and most situational healers of the 3 types (and I'd kinda like to hear a dev say that its working as intended)... If its the second then they should do something about itHere's the facts as we know them: 1) Our wards prevent less damage then druid or cleric spec heals (call it 410 vs. 490 for the first spec heal... can't remember exact numbers but that's hedging in our favor i believe) 2) The damage prevented is before mitigation (which can be as high as 60%)... 3) They do not stop any dots (and in the case of defilers are destroyed by first DoT tick)...4) Our debuffs prevents somewhere between 5-10% of total damage during a fight if they land... Given those facts, you would expect our spec heals to be, roughly, that same 5-10% behind the other classes... instead they appear to be roughly 20% pre mitigation and 150% post mitigation... If the lvl 50 numbers are different than that's great... I think its possible that people are deluding themselves, however. Based on my own experience, mobs have gotten MUCH easier in my 30s (relatively speaking). When I was 24 i had trouble soloing a 26. At 32 I can solo a 38 pretty comfortably and 39 if I take advantage of Hero's armor (Fighter HO that boosts AC for 6 mins). I think its possible that some of these higher level people feel they are good healers because they can do the job. I wonder if things might not get much harder in the next few months as the balancing act starts to swing into gear.

02-16-2005, 08:32 PM	#16
Banditman Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,459	Melampus wrote: Eloora rolled a Shaman on DAY FREAKING ONE! She was one of the first 5 (2nd or 3rd I believe) Shaman to L50 in the ENTIRE GAME. Her "research" consisted of the PROMISE of balance within each Archtype. Reading for comprehension is your friend. This statement was in response to someone who had told Eloora she should have done more research before rolling her Shaman. It has nothing to do with how quickly she got there, but it has a lot to do with the fact that most of the "research" available to her was what the Devs promised with the Archtype system. Honestly, Do ppl really think that the ones who lvl faster are smarter? Never said I did. I mean does getting in a static grp for 10 hours a day every day and grinding from 20-30 in 2 weeks make you the best? Nope. If that was all it took I'd be L50 by now easy. static grp mean 1...you don't know how to play with many classes till after you hit desired lvl if you only know playing with a cleric/bard/guard ect....then you don't know about HoTs, playing without mana regen, crusader tanking. all having the fastest leveling shows is high play amt high % of play time is xping that is all that list shows. Bandit you are not even 40 yet have posted 500+ posts..what research have you done that others cant see? What does my post count have to do with what research I've done? I happen to have a job that allows me to post liberally during the hours I work, and I do. Sorry if that annoys you. You'll notice that most of my posts happen before 5:00 PM EST, because after that I'm on the way home to actually play. I have a parser I can read logs Grats. everyone has opinions on if they think they are balanced or not..they may be right or wrong depending on their individual char and who they are judgeing against I had an opinion. I set out to understand why I had that opinion by looking at the underlying numbers involved. I now have a very good understanding of what debuffs do. I have an excellent understanding of the mechanics of Wards. All this because of my desire to better understand "why" I felt the way I did while playing. If you haven't read the "By the numbers" posts, you might give it a shot. Its a lot of solid, numerical data about Wards and debuffs. It's some ppl's idea that they are not balanced because the same lvl heal at the same skill lvl doesn't heal for teh same amt. others say they are balanced because of the debuffs we get. As my research has shown, those debuffs are of very little practical value. I've not yet seen any solid research done that demonstrates how our debuffs can be considered a form of balance in any encounter. fact of the matter is..if they want all priest to be EQUAL then they wouldn't have different armor types, if we have the same wis/power/ and they balance all spells then clerics can mitigate better so they still have a 1 up on other priest What does the armor each Priest wear have a THING to do with healing? armor isn't equal...heals aren't equal...reactives vs wards aren't equal...they get grp poison remove...So does that mean that clerics > shams?...i really don't think another priest can do better than me in keeping a grp alive..despite the differences...so does that mean im > cleric? I have group Noxious Cure. Don't you? As everyone has said countless times, if your Mystic makes you happy, enjoy. Those of us who feel there are problems seek only to level the playing field as we see it. No one says you have to be a part of that. talk amongst yourselves __________________

02-16-2005, 10:14 PM	#17
Leji General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 104	Melampus wrote: fact of the matter is..if they want all priest to be EQUAL then they wouldn't have different armor types, if we have the same wis/power/ and they balance all spells then clerics can mitigate better so they still have a 1 up on other priest You should try bear form some day. Pretty neat buff. With it a shaman thas more power than a cleric. He also has a good melee proc and see invis. Oh yeah, it also increase hp and ac, offsetting a the same time a good chunk of the ac advantage of the clerics (granted, clerics still have more ac, but hp/pwr/maul are not junk). By the way, equality among healers does not mean equality among healers healing. The priests are not equal when it comes to damage output and debuff/utility power, neither should they be when it comes to healing. They said the priests would be equal, not the healing. It's the same thing for the other archetypes : when it comes to raw mitigation Guardians are top dogs, but does that mean the other tanks are not equal to Gardians? No, to achieve their role, which is tanking, they provide either better agro generation, damage or utility to compensate the mitigation difference. At the end you can pick any member of the fighter archetype and have an efficient tank, even thought they are not equal in term of damage mitigation. It's the same thing with the scouts and the mages. You cannot focus on one single aspect of the class and then claim the whole class isn't equal to the others of the archetypes. It's a sum of abilities and healing (albeit being the more important) is only one of multiple things a priest perform in a group and the other things provided by each priests classes count when you compare a class to another and evaluate if they are equal or not. As it is the shaman have an advantage at debuffing, druids in damage output and clerics at healing. Don't get me wrong, wards do need to have the ac taken into account, but to ask for equal healing for all priests is nonsense unless you plan to also have equal debuffing and damage output for all of them, and once you're there what would be the point to have different classes? __________________ Kerosen 70 Dark Elf Mystic Mistmoore

02-16-2005, 10:41 PM	#18
Banditman Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,459	The promise made for EQ2 was that the PRIMARY function of each Archtype would be balanced across all Classes and sub-Classes independant of any utility that any distinct Class or sub-Class might bring. So, asking for HEALING to be equal is not at all outrageous. It's simply asking for a promise to be kept. Balancing the utility of the different Classes within an Archtype is a completely different discussion, and one that should be started at the point of Healing becoming equal. __________________

02-17-2005, 01:04 AM	#19
Melamp Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 170	Bandit1) which grp nox cure are you using?2) for your idea that they intend all priest to HEAL equally do you want all heal spells to heal the same amount for each class, since you don't consider debuffs to mean anything?

02-17-2005, 01:29 AM	#20
disru Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 285	There is only one group cure noxious, its the level 20 training spell. __________________ Please go voice your disdain for Mystic nerfage here!

02-17-2005, 02:23 AM	#21
Banditman Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,459	Melampus wrote: Bandit 1) which grp nox cure are you using? Yep the training one. I swear I cast that sucker more often than Ward. You simply can't go wrong with this thing. 2) for your idea that they intend all priest to HEAL equally do you want all heal spells to heal the same amount for each class, since you don't consider debuffs to mean anything? Let me address that twofold, since you kinda have two questions there even if you don't realize it. First, to directly answer your question, no, I do NOT want all heal spells to heal for exactly the same amount. To elucidate . . . let's say that they leave Wards alone and change nothing, leaving them at their current value and leaving them in pre-mitigation. If the Devs were to then go back and greatly increase our direct heals while leaving mana cost alone (increasing the efficiency of our direct healing) then that would certainly be a step toward balance. Now, I think a step like that would not be well received by the other Priest classes, so instead of making enemies of the other Priests, I seek to enlist them as allies in an attempt to make our specialty heal more comparable to theirs. Second, you are talking about debuffs and saying that I "don't consider debuffs to mean anything". This is not the case at all. Debuffs are certainly a wonderful utility that a Mystic can bring to the table. We have others as well. But frankly, so do the other Priests. If you look at the spell lineups, you'll see that each Priest has a fairly diverse set of utility spells that they can choose to cast or not. If the other Priests utility doesn't, in their minds, balance against ours . . . by all means, show me the numbers and I'll be happy to get behind an effort to balance Priest utility across the Archtype. __________________

02-17-2005, 06:01 PM	#22
BigDa Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 227	Banditman wrote: 2) for your idea that they intend all priest to HEAL equally do you want all heal spells to heal the same amount for each class, since you don't consider debuffs to mean anything? Let me address that twofold, since you kinda have two questions there even if you don't realize it. First, to directly answer your question, no, I do NOT want all heal spells to heal for exactly the same amount. To elucidate . . . let's say that they leave Wards alone and change nothing, leaving them at their current value and leaving them in pre-mitigation. If the Devs were to then go back and greatly increase our direct heals while leaving mana cost alone (increasing the efficiency of our direct healing) then that would certainly be a step toward balance. Now, I think a step like that would not be well received by the other Priest classes, so instead of making enemies of the other Priests, I seek to enlist them as allies in an attempt to make our specialty heal more comparable to theirs. Second, you are talking about debuffs and saying that I "don't consider debuffs to mean anything". This is not the case at all. Debuffs are certainly a wonderful utility that a Mystic can bring to the table. We have others as well. But frankly, so do the other Priests. If you look at the spell lineups, you'll see that each Priest has a fairly diverse set of utility spells that they can choose to cast or not. If the other Priests utility doesn't, in their minds, balance against ours . . . by all means, show me the numbers and I'll be happy to get behind an effort to balance Priest utility across the Archtype. This is a bit away from the OP point, but I just wanted to comment. What bandit says is right, but when I see this 'balance' argument, I always think the same thing. What the other classes (clerics, druids, whatever) can do in relation to what mystics can do is an important indicator for balance, but this isn't about class envy, here. To me, what clerics and druids can do is secondary consideration. The balance I require is on the scales against the monsters out there. Never mind 'epic encounters' - just about every group encounter I have I have to get out every tool in my box and use them hard and fast. There's a difference between being challenged and having fun and being frustrated and exhausted. With my tools as the are, it's the latter case more often than not, and that just can't be right. Blue^^ group encounter, single mob = ward, engage, slow, ward, DoT, DoT, DoT, heal, ward, ward... dead. Ok. That's the stuff. Blue group encounter, 4 mobs, 2 with ^ = ward, group ward, engage, group slow, AGGRO ARGH, ward self, heal self, ward tank, heal tank, ward tank, heal tank, heal self, ward self, ward tank, ... etc., dead. Collapse in a heap. Ask group if you can only do single target encounters. Get replaced by a cleric. Well, the last bit is an exaggeration, but otherwise that's what I deal with every day. I hope epic encounters are all single target...

02-17-2005, 08:02 PM	#23
Banditman Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,459	Sure, I agree with that. My point in comparing to Druids and Clerics is that these classes seem to have a significantly greater margin for error on any given encounter than a Shaman will. __________________

02-17-2005, 09:16 PM	#24
BigDa Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 227	Banditman wrote: Sure, I agree with that. My point in comparing to Druids and Clerics is that these classes seem to have a significantly greater margin for error on any given encounter than a Shaman will. Yeah, that is the way in which we are out-of-balance, I think. It's not that we can't perform, it's just that our performance is soooo situationally variant that, more-often-than-not we get frustration, not success. Personally, I would much prefer not to vary between very difficult and very easy. A more consistent challenge would obviously be preferable.

02-20-2005, 03:52 PM	#25
Vates_Sac Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 65	Well in any case, congradulations are in order for you and your group defeating the encounter. Secondly Mystics are broke in many area's, and it seems to me that groups need two healers, so I think that our main job is keeping the mobs weak and befuddled, so you did your job, as our class stand's now. Just hang in there, and hope they listen to our class problems. Good Job all together though.