Quetz, it wqasn't lu13 that broke the balance, it was the one that improved druid HoT's. Druids and clerics were balanced with LU13, but it was broken later.
Oh it was the change to hots that broke the balance, kk good to know so the change from 15 secs of 250 health a tick to 10 secs of 350 health a tick did it? Id much rather have a hot that lasts for 20 secs and heals for 200 a tick (about) that would be beneficial for the style of play for furies I wouldnt care one bit if they changed it back. Druid hots dont't stack so in raids I dont even cast my single target regen. Also to kenji, furies buff offense btw primal fury is single target only and fae flames is only useful when youre in a group which is full of melee and has a long recast. Do you want to add the dps buffing of furies to our personal dps and say how unbalanced it is? Well then add the dps buffing an inq can do to their personal dmg hmmm wouldnt that make inq the top dog in that dpt? Im sure they woulld.
No, I still think furies are superior offensively in that situation. That is because furies are a more offensive priest class. The fury superiority doesn't nullify contributions that a templar can make, though. I think that if you are measuring healer effectiveness in a group by the amount of damage they put out, something has gone awry. Just because the fury can do more damage does not make them a better healer. It might make them a better wizard. In the situation you described, a healer isn't needed at all and the fury could also be replaced. It gets even easier if the tank is a paladin. You could probably replace the tank too, with another scout for even faster killing. If content is such that you can plow through it without challenging a healer, the content is too easy. Is this your fault? Possibly not. But the problem is with the combat difficulty, not the healing ability. I prefer to accept less dps than a fury and push for more difficult combat situations, either just from my group or from the developers. I didn't roll a templar to do big dps, and I avoid groups like the one you mentioned because they are boring. They would be boring with any healer, because they are not challenging. The only place where I would really like templars to have more dps is solo, and even that should only happen because all the solo quests are about killing 50 mobs of the same type, something that my templar would prefer not to do anyway if there was other quest content to do solo. Leave the mob killing to the professionals, I say. Make everyday group combat require significant healing, and make a significant percentage of battles last long enough to equalize burst and consistent damage. These are better solutions, in my mind, than giving templars bigger nukes. Alephin
Developers have stated that the intention of balance from the combat revamp was made around grouping...and that spells can be balanced separately for PVP and PVE. What information do you have indicating that the developers are intending to balance the game around PVP?
Lord I hope they're not balancing around PVP. That's not a good idea unless the end game is centered around PVP as the primary target for gameplay like in games like Shadowbane or DAOC.
God, I hate to agree with that. If they balanced it around PvP, then I would bet serious money that the templar would be different. It would be a total exercise in frustration to fight one. Can you imaging how long it would take to kill a templar of equal level with equal gear. Infact, they would still be dueling by the time this thread dies.
I'd duel the way I handle the champion in Splitpaw... keep casting my reactive and healing until the opponent doesn't have any mana, then blast away with my "Tickle Me Elmo" smites.
Ahem! As I stated, they will not be balancing classes around PVP - not in any way that affects PVE: [/QUOTE] P.S. - The above few comments are exactly the reason I ask people on this forum to back up the comments they make. Rumors are incredibly easy to start on this forum, and tend to have a life of their own. Already, just one comment from Timaarit claiming as fact that "todays 'balance' has been made around PvP and PvP alone" was enough to already start a small train of doubt. Message Edited by Kendricke on 12-06-2005 06:53 AM
They have stated so many other things that are not reality that I don't believe that Moorgards statement for a second. They have not made any changes to skills in the way Moorgard has stated, only difference now is that mobs have no resists nor mitigation and all damage a spell does, is taken to the full amount. They also gave mobs more health to compensate this. With players, resists and mitigation does affect. So they have in fact not made any changes to any specific spells/skills, all modifications have been made to all skills. So in fact, even that part of Moorgards post is false. I repeat, they have not touched a single skill the way he mentioned. Unless you consider modifying all skills to fit that wording.
Ahem! Tsk, Tsk. It's not what's said it's what's done. It's not what numbers say it's how it is in the game (such as: DPS in 30 secs vs. long fight averaging -- long fight average is irrelevant when typical fight for any class but cleric is under 30 secs) Being concerned that one of the reasons this game is borked is Sony is messing with it for PvP is a valid concern that makes sense. Postulate: the reason devs aren't commenting on our appaling DPS in gameplay is they don't want us getting any DPS since it would affect PvP balance. Doesn't matter if Sony claims it won't/shouldn't but they aren't here telling us why we aren't allowed fair DPS now are they?
Exactly. The general M.O. of game devs is to deny everything until the day it's done ......... unless and *until* it's something they want to make a big marketing campaign on.
Ok, so now the developers are actively working against the playerbase...and intentionally misleading us...and I'm supposed to take the word of Timaarit, Bigmak, and Gchang over the actual coders and designers when it comes to developer intention? I'm genuinely curious if what I stated is the intention of what each of you is saying.
I *think* they are suggesting that you should take the posts made by the developers with a grain of salt and not as gospel since they have sometimes said one thing and done something different. Message Edited by Copperhand on 12-06-2005 01:30 PM
To make the devs to rething their own motivations. Is it to make the PvE playable by all classes or is it to balance PvP. As it is, PvP is pretty balanced, though templars are not fun even there and healer vs. healer fights are so boring that no one does them. I dont even want to fight paladins, SK's nor bruisers since they can heal themselves, the fights are neverending. But they are balanced since the loser is the one who rans out of patience first. PvE on the other hand is not balanced, there are now several classes that at their best can do what all the other classes can, but in normal situations, other classes go past them very clearly. The DPS tree Moorgard provided as a fact, did not happen, but heck, all classes are PvP balanced at least.
**REMOVED DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT** Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on 12-06-2005 10:51 AM
I'm a little perplexed by the magnitude of that HoT improvement after update 13 myself. It makes more sense for wardens than furies, anyhow. In my opinion, furies should be able to keep up with burst damage, but they should have to pay a great power/time (not have time to do anything else) penalty for doing so. I'm not sure that the current penalty is enough, but I'm not going to be dogmatic on the subject, because I don't play a fury and don't understand all of their limitations. Alephin
I'm not assuming anything. That's why I asked for a clarification. I posted what it sounded like to me and asked if my interpretation was accurate. I try to work with facts. When statements are made that the developers say one thing and do another, I want to see facts related to that - not personal assumptions. It's a heck of an allegation to level at anyone - that they are intentionally misleading. Developers clearly state that PVE balance isn't affected by PVP balance, and yet that's somehow incorrect? Based on what? Are any of you authorities on game balance privy to information the rest of us are not? Have you seen the design docs and specs? Have you glanced through lines of code? Where are the facts here? It's ok to speculate, provided that your speculation is not presented as factual. However, that's exactly what I'm seeing here. I'm seeing outright factual statements that are based on nothing more than a firm belief, apparantly. If I'm missing out on something, I'd be keen to see what it is I'm supposed to see. Short of calling the developers liars, it doesn't seem to me that there's much of a way to refute what it is Moorgard (and others) have stated on the subject...at least till the new PVP system goes live, at least.
Kendricke; The only one that said the developer's stated one thing and did another was you. Once again you attempt to attach your own words to someone else. I merely pointed out the developer's intent was not always how the game plays. My post was clear. Don't obfuscate.
**REMOVED DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT, PERSONAL ATTACKS** Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on 12-06-2005 10:49 AM
