**REMOVED, IF YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH POSTS REPORT THEM FOR REVIEW THANK YOU** Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on 12-06-2005 02:13 PM
Anyway, looks like you agree with me Kendr since the only defence you had is to twist my words and build up a strawman. If you were right, you would have had facts to prove otherwisi. But you dont.
Timaarit, My post is phrased as a question and a statement asking for clarification. If I'm wrong, then simply say I'm misunderstanding you. Otherwise, that's how I took the posts I saw. Frankly, you did state: "They have stated so many other things that are not reality that I don't believe that Moorgards statement [regarding PVP/PVE balancing] for a second." You did state: "Now that proves that you [Kendricke] dont have a clue about the devs intent. Todays 'balance' has been made around PvP and PvP alone." [/QUOTE] These statements lead me to believe that you feel you know the developer intent. Moreover, you seem to indicate that we should take your statement as fact, and not believe the statement made by the developers. This isn't semantics. This is direct line communications. That's what I read there. Are you saying that I misread? If so, please explain what I saw incorrectly there...because from what I'm seeing, you seem to indicate that we should not accept the developer's own word on the subject, and should take your word, instead.
I know what they have done. I also understand why. If they would make templars more powerful, all other classes would start complaining because templars couldn't be beaten in PvP. Now less people complain. And they are not telling the truth about their intent either. Because that would also cause an uproar. Remember when they mentioned that they are not going to bring PvP to EQ2? Then it changed to 'near' future. Then they were never going to bring full PvP servers. Now they are looking into it. So which do you believe, words or facts? I prefer latter, that is why I dont believe your opinions either. Edit: Now here is the kicker: Why is Reverence so crappy in groups :smileywink:? Answer is that if it was any better, it would be too good for PvP. Message Edited by Timaarit on 12-06-2005 11:14 PM
No, I don't recall that. I recall in posts made on AgeOfDestiny.com long before beta that Moorgard stated there would be no PVP at release. I recall him specifically asking for a forum post to be created to discuss what would be wanted within a PVP system. I remember discussions that PVP would eventually be placed within the game, but that we would not expect to see special rules servers at release. If you want me to "remember" when they mentioned they were not going to bring PVP to EQ2, then I'm going to ask you to find the quote that says such a thing. Without such a supporting statement, you're asking that we take you at your word only. So far, I'm not inclined to do such a thing, particularly with the statements I'm able to verify that directly contradict your personal recollections. NOTE: All of this following quotes are from 2003 - a full year prior to release. Even while they were announcing then that PVP would not be available at launch, they were stating that they would be introducing it at some point: Wed Oct 08, 2003 12:58 pm http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=108686&highlight=#108686 Moorgard wrote:This topic has already been discussed internally, and a decision was made. Normal servers will allow multiple characters. While you can feel free to discuss the merits of that decision, it's not something up for debate. We may introduce servers with special rulesets that limit you to one character, but that would happen down the road. [/QUOTE] Tue Nov 25, 2003 11:33 pm http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=144327&highlight=#144327 Moorgard wrote:While we do plan to have special rules servers, we're not going to promise them at launch. We'd really rather not rush out special rules servers without proper planning and testing; I think in the long run that would be worse than not having them right away. At a minimum I will advocate that a server be designated "roleplaying preferred," as that's something quite important to many players. Unfortunately the same kind of thing wouldn't be possible with a PvP server, as simply turning on a PvP flag and throwing balance to the wind would be a disservice to the customer base. Nor can we just copy over server code from EQLive--even if such a thing were possible, copying their rules without proper testing and tweaking wouldn't be a good solution. Whether we have special rules servers at launch depends on a number of factors, most notably the time necessary to design, code, and test them. I'll give specifics about our progress on this issue before release, but probably not long before then. This statement supercedes previous commentary on the subject. [/QUOTE] Wed Nov 26, 2003 02:19 am http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=144432&highlight=#144432 Moorgard wrote: Agraza wrote:If its a question of not being able to find the time to make it worthwhile I can understand. if its some BS about simply catering to the larger audience its not acceptable.[/QUOTE] Nothing I wrote says anything about catering to the larger audience as an excuse. As I stated, the main issue is time--time to do special rulesets right rather than rush something out the door. The goal is to do compelling PvP that has rewards beyond just fighting someone. We are not out to eliminate PvP players, but rather to offer something that might even attract more players to those servers. The question is whether we can do that in a way that's up to the standards we have for the game in the time before we ship. I hope we can, and I know you do, too. But I'm not going tell you "Oh yeah, it's coming, don't worry" if there's a possibility that we'd have to disappoint you later. Quasar of Ebonlore wrote:What is UNACCEPTABLE is that you are even remotely considering copying that crappy code in the first place. How many PvPers has SOE lost due to that code. That code didn't/doesn't work and PvPers aren't looking for EQ2 with EQ1 PvP code. OMG that would be the biggest mistake to date in PvP in a MMOG. [/QUOTE] Which, if you read what I wrote, was exactly my point. Based on the complaints I've seen about the implementation of PvP in some other games (including EQ), I really think most people who enjoy PvP want to see it done well. Those who are saying "Just give us something!" in this thread would complain as loud as anyone about a bad PvP implementation. We want to offer gameplay to the PvP market that is done well. We'd like to offer it the day we ship, but I can't guarantee it, so I won't. If it takes us extra time to get it right, then in the long run it's better for everyone if we do that. [/QUOTE] Wed Nov 26, 2003 03:00 pm http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=144815&highlight=#144815 Moorgard wrote: I appreciate the fact that some people love PvP, and that entire social structures can be built around this commonality. But please try to remember, during the course of your advocacy, that there are also people who don't enjoy it and wouldn't want any part of it even if we had the best PvP ever. That doesn't make them wrong and you right, nor the other way around. Defeating a smart opponent can be very satisfying--it's the basis for sporting events on all levels. Being griefed and shamed for losing is not fun for most people, however, and that is the biggest stumbling block to PvP acceptance in our culture. I'd love to see a consolidated thread for PvP ideas that takes into account what you know about our game mechanics. This should be maintained by a single voice, kind of a PvP index with the best ideas added to the initial post. [/QUOTE]
I think you may be surprised at how fast we burn through power really. We do have the fasest and quick recast. But overall pre-52 heal for less than other priests by about 7%. Casting faster & recast faster = OOP faster Make no mistake though, if I'm healing on a rough encounter, I'm doing nothing else except healing and generally gritting my teeth when doing it. Keeper of Silence puts me on edge like you wouldn't believe . While there is some capability to deal with burst, the heals are still markedly small overall. Kinda depends on what the "burst" was. Hit for 1k? sure doable and quickly. Nuked for 3k? Well, at 50/51 I could replace about 1100 with Master1s of that 3k in 2.5s...but nothing else for another 4-5s... the regen is ticking, but did I really recover from that burst? Getting hit with a series of hard hits to get to 3k in say 1s (CAs or something) would generally have resulted in the same thing for a fury, in the cleric's case though, the series of hits triggered the reactive 3x while regen didn't scale... and tank is still continually getting hit. So it's not only "burst" it's kinda along the lines of "what kind of burst" too. It's those kinds of things that make a regen and group regen pale where the reactive versions shine. In the event of a nuke we likely didn't do a whole lot better than anyone else. In the event of several hard hits in a fast time, cleric handled the burst better. With BITF, I can handle burst substantially better. Especially when you consider mobs don't tend to have ice comet, assassinate, etc pre-50. However, that burst handling isn't unconditional and if I mistime the cast, I paid arch cost cost for heal that was less than my small normal heal, considering regens are ticking, more people than I have heals (pallies, sk lifetaps, mends, necros, etc) it's easy to miss on bitf. And if a mob is just pummeling into a tank, there's not much I can do except heal with everything I have as I've nothing preventing any of the damage it's doing. I just chaincast heals. The mob might die 10s faster from various buffs, but that doesn't matter if you can't keep the tank up. There's a lot of aspects to consider in all the classes and how they function. That's actually a lot of the reason I like to read and respond in the templar forum. I've learned a lot from what I read here from Kend, Cath, Tim, Bigmack, Radon, etc. about how templars do and don't work. Each of them has valid points whether they'd loathe to admit that the opposing viewpoint may or may not. I hope clarifications and explanations I give from my experiences are constructive and informative for them as well. I even try and provide some ideas and suggestions that I hope may be of use. Message Edited by Dalcharis on 12-06-2005 05:05 PM
from what i learn in this big talk. BiTF makes fury better for handling burst, and essentially equal for single target stable dmg. which catched up the Templar's. With the outstanding effect from group regen, and Hibernation, the group heal ability is way passed Templar. SoE called this balanced. i learned that the number of buffs is exactly the same within all priests. while 4 of 6 priest have animal buff , druid has power regen, inquisitor, fury, mystic got haste/dps (proc). Templar got a proc that block 1 shot. SoE called this balanced. i learned the DPS from fury should be best in priest. and Templar should be worst. SoE called this balanced. thanks for the lesson. i can go delete my templar now. any welcome to the fury/warden board? Message Edited by kenjiso on 12-06-2005 05:12 PM
to Furygod, i didnt say Primal Fury is a group buff, if u take some care when reading, i say a 500 dps rogue can push to 800 while proc..thats for a 300 dps up. for 1 fury buff. then i add up the fae flame, due to it's fixed dmg. the dmg is fixed. dps from 240 - 120 dps. i actually put that because Kend put the Admonishment look as dps that templar do. put the data of inquisitor up here pls, dont just say =)
Hehe I think it's the resounding silence as to what the balancing and counterbalancing things are that has people on edge. Dropping a note and saying how a spell functions or was a display issue doesn't really tell you much about what they're actually thinking and general intents.
I agree. I'd like to know what they have in mind for their priest balancing efforts. I for one prefer a defensive v. offense healer approach. Many think, however, that SOE has abandoned that tack because it is too hard to tune, and that they have decided to make all healers defensively equal to each other. BitF lends serious credence to that theory, at least on the outside of furydom looking in. I would like to hear an official comment on what developers think should be the advantage of playing a templar--or a warden for that matter--over a fury. In my mind, the jury is still out. They could quell a lot of anxiety with a simple comment or two, at least in my case. Alephin
I think the dps/haste portions of that spell only affect auto-attack damage. So if I'm right, the actual boost isn't likely to be an order of 300 dps. And it's I think 10% chance to proc for 10s duration... you know... hmm... I don't see it go off often on myself, I do wonder how often it goes off on a scout... I'd assume more often wonder if it's on about 30% of fights, or 50%... something to look into. Fae Flames number of people meleeing in the 20s of it's duration (20s recast) w/ 125 each hit x3 hits: 1 - 18.75dps 2 - 37.5dps 3 - 56.25dps 4 - 75dps 5 - 93.75dps 6 - 112.5dps Assuming that you have adept 3 Nuke on the fury and it hits for 1300 (I think the range at 60 is about 1100 -1500 I'm at work so estimating) = 72.2dps. The power cost on Fae if I remember right was about the same as the nuke. So to generally break even you need 4 people meleeing for it to make par. Which is about right for what I remember when I looked at them in game. Course, it does land on pets (not dumbfire pets), but anyway the point being that generally Fae doesn't do much as it's power intensive and not worth the cost if you only have 3 or less people smacking things. I typically find myself with 2 mages in a group (guild has lots of casters...) and I'm usually in mage groups in raids, so this spell sees little real action. It's kinda like your lotto heals, while you can cast them, and they may go off or not, the power is generally spent better elsewhere unless the circumstance warrents otherwise.
if a small grp (2-4), fury self dps is way higher than templar. if a big grp of melee (6, 5 tanks, 1 healer), fae flame and admonishment is about the same useful. if a big grp of melee (6, 5 dps class (such as zerker tank), 1 healer)with uber dps (currently soe up`d the proc rate of DW, and the *bug* of ranger proc rate still here), primal fury , fae flame will just pwn admonishment. i just want to point templar can never close to 50% of a fury do on dps session...(either dps / debuff usefulness) but a fury can do 90% of a templar on heal session... btw...And it's I think 10% chance to proc for 10s duration... you know... hmm... I don't see it go off often on myself, u know, GoC is 5%, and Kend still think it proc more than enough to keep a group alive w/o healing (in some situations, mutiple buffs), so i think 10% is doubled rate.
Well, here's a good question for all priests: Do we consider healing defense? When I personally think defense, I think preventing damage from occurring, or immediate nullification. While reactives heal, they heal immediately, I think of that less as healing than I think of it as defense. I think wards (dear god we could all only hope to have a specialty so fabulous... I <3 my little shaman!!) are preventative. Slows are preventative. The Lotto blocker temps have, is preventative. Stifles/stuns are preventative. I think of healing as something broke through defenses and needs replenished. You're working your way back up and recovering. Now, for our christmas wishlists... in every general class forum (mage, priest, fighter, scout) a post from a developer on the states of classes and what their general intent and ideas are about the subclasses, and quelling some of the biggest questions some of the classes have. For example... why different recast timers for priest heals? How is the dps balance for priests and fighters generally scaled? Why does assassin dmg still generally stink as a Tier 1 dps class? What on all of Norrath are you thinking about doing for enchanters? Why do guardians get to make their heart explode? Did I hit upon the big ones?
/ooc, as long as no SoE feedback we are broken, every class is "fine", everything is "balanced". even we dont agree ourselves.
As for the mechanics of PvP, I will again make clear that there are no duels, guild wars, or PvP servers currently being planned for EverQuest II. Our focus will continue to be on the PvE experience. =========================== Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard 11-09-2004 http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=1775#M1775 It's simply a feature we decided not to include in EverQuest II. As you point out, there are a lot of options for PvP fans in other SOE games. =========================== Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard Game Designer, EverQuest II 11-16-2004 http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=20506#M20506 There are no duels, guild wars, or PvP servers currently planned for EQII. Our focus will continue to be on enhancing the PvE experience. Ryan "Blackguard" Shwayder 12-17-2004 http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=72084#M72084 That is either a false copy or a misinformed GM -- we currently have no plans to implement PvP in EverQuest II (that includes duels, guild wars, PvP servers, etc). Ryan "Blackguard" Shwayder 12-18-2004 http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=72893#M72893 While this thread isn't out of hand yet, I am closing it down before it does. As others have pointed out, this is a "dead horse" topic. We do not currently have any plans to implement PvP in EverQuest II. That includes dueling, guild wars, PvP servers, etc. If that ever changes, we will let you know. Ryan "Blackguard" Shwayder 12-23-2004 http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=15322#M15322 And then ................ Also, we're taking the first step towards introducing PvP competition with the introduction of a new type of combat! John Smedley April 7th, 2005 Like I said, deny it until you're ready for the marketing campaign :smileyvery-happy:
I definitely consider heals defensive in nature. The way I would define it if I were balancing classes would be to say that offense is any way of controlling outgoing damage, and defense is any way of controlling incoming damage. Healing would qualify as defense, because it is removing damage that has come in. Offensive abilities are damage proc buffs, mitigation debuffs (physical or spell types), nukes, dots, hastes, skill buffs, strength and int buffs, etc. Defensive abilities, include all heals, wards, stuns, mezzes, stifles, slows, armor class buffs, and avoidance buffs. Might as well throw hit point buffs in there as well, since having hit points is only important if one is taking damage. This is not a total list. In my mind, all combat spells (including resurrections) fall into either the offensive or defensive category. Some, such as the templar smite, actually have components from both, as useless as a 1 second pacify might be. Utility such as sow and oddysey must be balanced completely separately, in my opinion, because it will almost always take a back seat to combat effectiveness except in very special circumstances. Alephin
Now, not to seem picky once again, but this is all irrelevant to what I specifically argued. I was specifically arguing the statement "Remember when they mentioned that they are not going to bring PvP to EQ2?" All I can say is that had you been paying attention in late 2003 and again throughout pre-release 2004, you'd know that they stated clearly that PVP was not to be included at launch, nor would it be included till sometime "down the road". However, it was stated even then that PVP would eventually be looked at...but that primarily, the developers would be concentrating on PVE at launch. Besides which, there's a whole lot of "currently" in there. Moorgard's made it clear on many occasions that what he posts is accurate at the time he posts it. Then again, considering all of the posts you quoted come from November and December of 2004, that's consistent with pre-release announcements that Moorgard made on EQLounge (now Ogaming) and EQII.com regarding their plans to not include PVP at launch, but at some point "down the road". In any regard, they did state clearly that should the situation change, they'd inform us. In April, it would seem that they did. However, if you're dead set on locking them down, that's up to you. I realize that how much you hate it when you seem to perceive me "nit picking", so I'd hate to think that you're spending too much time trying to find that one elusive quote that will "PROVE" I'm wrong. Tell you what, I'll just admit I'm wrong now and give you the satisfaction of winning the argument. You're absolutely correct that SOE stated that there'd be no PVP. Obviously I've spent too much time reading what was actually said and not reading into what was said, so I apparantly overlooked all the posts where SOE representatives mislead us and hoodwinked us just to get us to believe that there'd never be any PVP. All the posts I read on the subject regarding PVP eventually coming out was aparantly a smokescreen - a clever diversion to make us believe that there'd eventually be PVP when in fact they never intended there to be any PVP at all... (Oh wait! ...but there is PVP coming. ...and they did originally state that PVP would be included down the road. Oh well, I must have read it all wrong. ...right? :smileywink Well, thanks for showing me how incorrect I was anyway. I'm sure you're right and they're wrong somehow and I'm just not smart enough to figure it out.
