ROFL! If you want to be a healer, why dont you just play Templar? The Paladin on the test server is no longer a fighter and is a very weak healer at best. We now rank below the priest classes in DPS. They should create a new archetype just for paladins and call it the "looks pretty in vangaurd armor but cant fight their way out of a paper bag class". Both our basic heal and our ward are now interruptible, significantly reducing our self-healing and warding ability when tanking. We cant do any damage so we cant kill tough mobs without help. The increased mitigation does not make up for these glaring weaknesses. We cant ward ourselves when tanking, we cant heal ourselves when tanking and we cant kill the mobs we are fighting when tanking. Exactly what good are we? But hey, we got a new "offensive stance" - Unyielding Wrath. The last series of screenshots by me were taken while using our "offensive stance". Our offensive stance gave me zero increase in damage. I am not sure what we are supposed to do when using our offensive stance. Perhaps we should start practicing with voice or text macros. Maybe we could talk the mobs to death Message Edited by BlackWeb on 08-06-2005 11:36 PM
Take a look at the persona screen in the first series of screenshots. He has all of the str buffs I could give him including an imbued str ring. Believe me when I tell you, THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE OUR DAMAGE IN THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE COMBAT CHANGES. No amount of strength, intelligence, wisdom, master 1 skills, legendary weapons, fabled weapons will have a significant impact on Paladin damage. The best you can hope for is to find a strong templar with a good divine damage debuff and group with them. Of course if you watch a templar in action with these changes in effect, you will be asking yourself. Why arent I playing a Templar?
So here is a question: According to all the reports I have seen, tanks now have been balanced with very low DPS and high mitigation (compared to mages that have high DPS and low mitigation and scout that are somewhere in the middle). The result of these changes appears to be that (1) tanks can beat even-con encounters, but it takes them a long time, and (2) mages can beat even-con encounters, and do so quickly with high-damage nukes. Based on that, doesn't the combat balance present a HUGE glaring problem, in that it now takes tanks twice as long (if not more) to kill the same mobs, and twice as long to level as mages and scouts? Sure the damage/mitigation changes seem to make some sense in the theoretical sense, but when practically applied they seem to significantly hamper tank advancement. Am I misunderstanding, or is tank advancement about to (excuse the pun) tank? Message Edited by Eueadan on 08-07-2005 11:09 AM
Fell, I was looking through your posts for the other thread you mentioned (looking for the other side of the story) and found a post where you said (paraphrasing): "Yes, paladins can still solo, it just takes longer." That is EXACTLY the problem I am worried about. I wasn't saying that I am worried tanks will not be able to solo, SOE would be signing EQ2's death warrant if they ever took away tank's ability to solo (and demonstrating that they have NO common game sense whatsoever). What I WAS saying is that if it takes tanks longer to kill mobs, and it takes mages and scouts less time to kill mobs, doesn't that SIGNIFICANTLY unbalance our XP advancement compared to other classes. If the combat balance is truely going to "balance" things, a tank should be able to get the EXACT same of xp a mage can get in a 1 hour period of time. These changes seem to upset that balance, which is my question. Let me ask the question a different way... If it takes tanks longer to kill things, aren't we getting a SIGNIFICANT xp-over-time nerf with the "balance?" If so, aren't tanks now being significantly "UN-balanced" from an xp perspective with the changes?
Yes, Implacable Wrath is our new "offensive stance". The first series of screenshots were with Shining Beacon and the second with Implacable Wrath. The offensive stance did not appear to provide any significant offensive benefit.
I did check the numbers and the overall damage reduction seems to be around 60-70%. I dont know about statistics but I do know that Sworn Strike\Oath Strike were our most important offensive spells or arts. I would say that 80-90% of the damage I did to mobs was by those two spells and arts along with our primary AoE which has also been sigifincantly nerfed. When it comes to the dps nerf, it could be closer to 80% because of increased interruption by mobs. It is now much easier for mobs to interrupt us. Each interruption causes us to lose dps. Increased interruption has doubled or more the effective cast timers of our ward and heal. It has had a similar effect on our "offensive" spells and combat arts. Longer time between cast = lower dps. The Paladins primary magic attack is divine damage. Our taunt/divine debuff did not appear to significantly increase our divine damage. Adept III Smite Prayer increased RoG damage from 130 to 150, not enough to make it worth the power needed to use the debuff. The new offensive stance does not appear to increase any damage other than pure melee and that not by much but it does reduce our mitigation significantly vs our defensive stance. I can only evalutate what I see. I do know that the Paladin on the test server is not the Paladin that was described to me at the summit. I have not logged onto the test server with my other Paladin who is equipped with only Apprentice IV spells and combat arts, franky, I am afraid that if I actually see the extent of the nerf to to him, I will never want to play him again. If I can talk myself into doing it, I will post some screenshots. Message Edited by BlackWeb on 08-07-2005 10:39 AM
Our taunts seem to work thought it is now more difficult to manage group agro as our group taunts/buffs no longer transfer hate. The divine damage debuff of our group taunt seems to have little if any effect.
I suppose that's a valid concern, yes. It all depends what you mean by "taking longer to kill things". From the more rational posts I've read, the only real "xp-nerf-over-time" Paladins are looking at is that derived from being unable to solo heroic encounters anymore...but then, that's as it should be. Killing solo mobs in the green-blue-white range is marginally slower. Some say it's much longer, some say not...but neither group is correct, really, because the changes aren't finalized yet. Do all the Paladins revolted by this change realize that were were one of maybe three classes in the whole game that could solo Heroics? My regular Mystic duo partner would have her tiny dwarven butt handed to her by a green Heroic 5 levels below her, while I can basically attack it and know with a certainty of roughly 99% that it's a dead mob before the fight even starts. Wizards cannot do that, Illusionists, Templars, Enchanters, Rangers, Swashbucklers, Necromancers....they all have a slim-to-none chance of pulling off such an encounter right now, but for me it's a cakewalk. Why is it unthinkable for us to lose the (unbalanced) ability to do something that almost no other class could? How self-centered can someone possibly be?
#1 - I am a paladin, and I have never been able to solo heroics (except a handful of green ones on rare occassions). #2 - I am veimently opposed to the heroic system in its current form (and its proposed form for that matter). In it's current form, there are mobs in every zone of the game that are absolutely UNKILLABLE for xp except for groups (by "for XP," I recognize that players so high above the level of the mob that they grey out can kill the mobs). Considering that many heroic mobs are REQUIRED to complete mainstream quests, I think that is the stupidest part of the game. IMHO, all players in the game should be balanced to solo-kill (1) a white con, and (2) a green heroic. Heroics should be unkillable by even and blue conning characters, but SHOULD be killable to everyone as a green con. I have no problems with certain zones being designed for groups, nor do I care that there are high end group quests. However, I am totally opposed to anything in the mainstram game that requires grouping, and I think filling zones like antonica with a bunch of heroic mobs that are killable ONLY with a group is stupid. In that respect, I think your implication that it is improper for players to be able to kill heroics is totally wrong. In truth, all classes should be balanced to be able to kill green heroics, instead of everyone being nerfed to the point where they can't. #3 - If you are calling me "selfish" because I am suggesting that all players in the game (including my own class) should be able to get equal xp in an equal amount of time, I think you are just flaming others to be a [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot].
I suppose that's a valid concern, yes. It all depends what you mean by "taking longer to kill things". From the more rational posts I've read, the only real "xp-nerf-over-time" Paladins are looking at is that derived from being unable to solo heroic encounters anymore...but then, that's as it should be. Killing solo mobs in the green-blue-white range is marginally slower. Some say it's much longer, some say not...but neither group is correct, really, because the changes aren't finalized yet. Actually, killing green heroics wasn't particularly good XP, it was more done for the challenge and for quest updates, not for XP. Do all the Paladins revolted by this change realize that were were one of maybe three classes in the whole game that could solo Heroics? My regular Mystic duo partner would have her tiny dwarven butt handed to her by a green Heroic 5 levels below her, while I can basically attack it and know with a certainty of roughly 99% that it's a dead mob before the fight even starts. Wizards cannot do that, Illusionists, Templars, Enchanters, Rangers, Swashbucklers, Necromancers....they all have a slim-to-none chance of pulling off such an encounter right now, but for me it's a cakewalk. Why is it unthinkable for us to lose the (unbalanced) ability to do something that almost no other class could? Because ultimately it made for a more enjoyable game. That other classes could not means that those classes should have had their abilities increased. Instead, SOE is balancing everyone to the lowest common denominator, which is only going to frustrate people.
Yes, I am. 36 Kerra Paladin, first character I created in this game and the one I devote 90% of my limited playtime to. http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=122267108 Peruse to your heart's content.
It will only frustrate those people who've enjoyed what is an unfair advantage compared to those vast majority of classes who have not been able to solo said mobs. There are more classes that could solo a low green heroic mob at 50 than those that couldn't. Granted, it takes different tactics and levels of skill, but it can be done. Rather than nerf everyone down to the lowest performing class, which is what these changes seem to be doing, they should have brought the underperforming classes up to a higher level. Overall, SOE seems intent on limiting what players are capable of - proving fewer options and playstyles, not more.
You want to see if I can make a new Paladin to 60 on Guk before you get your primary 10 month old level 41 Paladin to 60? You can even keep levelling from now till September 12. You act like it's IMPOSSIBLE to solo with lower DPS, and yet somehow Priests have been doing it for nearly a year now without the benefit of Paladin Mitigation AND DPS.
Between you and me, what do you think had a more reasonable chance of being completed within our lifetimes; balancing a single archetype to more resemble the other 20+ archetypes in the game, or bringing 20+ archetypes up to one archetype's level? There's your answer.
Moorgard's asking for factual, definable, objective emperical evidence. You offer your personal, subjective, anecdotal evidence. Now, there's nothing wrong with the latter, except that you're trying to present it as the former. As far as the "Paladin that was described to [you] at the summit", it sounds pretty close to what I heard and expected. Again, however, you're offering up your own persona, subjective recollection...not necessarily factual truth. Even so, changes occur on a daily basis (remember, we were informed that there were no expected changes to the patron system coming either). There are no sacred cows here and SOE certainly doesn't require the permission of Summit attendees before making decisions.
Well Cleric on live have more mitigation than paladin, we wear the same armor and we don't have any mitigation buff, but we have more avoidance and DPS and less healing power
