So Furies cast faster and spend less time casting but still manages to heal the same amount as a Templar who has to cast more spells than the Fury? The only way this makes sense here would then be that Fury spells heal for more, with lower cast times.
OOC. This thread was meant to be a data delivery thread, and for discussion of the data, regarding Templar vds Fury DPS. There are many other threads discussing healing, and they are best kept to their own threads. However, the following post is such an extreme example of continued and potentially dangerous fallacy that I simply must point out where the poster is wrong, and where he is ignoring the salient points YET AGAIN. All this said, this thread is not the right place for all this discussion. I will carry out the parses for Anna tonight in Pillars of Flame, and then post all the results later if I have time. Felishanna / Annaelisa Message Edited by Caethre on 12-22-2005 04:27 PM
Yes, a fury can have some more power, but I don't think it makes up for the high power cost of their reliance on small direct heals in burst situations, nor does it make up for the necessity of them physically casting lots and lots of spells, opening up lots of fizzle chances and potential mistakes in sequencing and queuing. Maybe the fury should give me their power buff and play back-up healer if we are together (unless I'm chain pulling or crowd controlling a bunch). Their nukes are better, and my healing is more efficient. You won't find me arguing that a druid doesn't shine when there are lots of AOEs. I just don't find myself in heavy AoE situations that much in day-to-day battles, though, and when I have, I've managed with the group magic ward that templars get. Not as good, no, but it is helpful if you use it. This type of scenario is a definite druid strong point, because that group HoT can heal a lot of damage. And don't forget to add in your comparison that the templar group reactive is much more effective an efficient than the druid HoT at healing a single target. Alephin
You misread. He is actually agreeing with you that this thread is about DPS, and that the discussion of the level 55 Ancient Fury heal being the point of contention does not relate to the DPS discussion.
Alas, internet forums are living documents, and the only way to truly keep a thread on topic is to lock out every poster other than yourself. I do appreciate Caethre's work. I can't say I'm surprised by the results, but they are nice to see quantified. I just don't think that giving defensive priests more dps is the best way to fix this game. But I doubt that Caethre and I will ever agree on that. Alephin
I do not believe you either. My evidence suggests that Templars ARE superior healers in many situations as long as the encounter has not been trivialized. As a healer, my healing is FAR more important than the DPS I can do. As such, I will sacrifice LARGE amounts of DPS for SMALL amounts of healing. Thus I can make the same statement as you: Who are we to believe? Caethre? Or our own experiences, the devs, and logical analysis rolled into one? So keep making the claim that a Templar's defensive advantage is worth less than a Fury's offensive advantage. The rest of us know better. As for pre-LU13... Templars were clear and away the king of the healers. Shamans were broken, Wardens couldn't keep up with damage. Of course Templars wouldn't complain then =P Talk about being obvious!
I am still of the opinion that priest classes are relatively balanced, and Furies may have too much DPS and should be adjusted down. But most people suffer from a combination of nerfphobia and greed - leading to not wanting to nerf anything while only wanting to see their own class get more stuff.
From reading your posts, I expect we have similar views about this. I think there is too great a discrepancy between named and regular heroic encounter difficulties. For the nameds to be doable, the heroics are trivial. If encounters were tougher, in general, defensive priests would have more to do. Dps is only important for a priest in the solo game. Frankly, a soloing priest should be doing things other than killing monsters by themselves, but SOE has chosen not to make solo quests require anything other than doing damage and running around, so templars and other low damage classes are doing the same things as other classes who are much better designed for that sort of thing. Shame on Sony for a lack of originality, but we healers are stuck with it. Alephin
Nice study. I'm glad you are making this available for people to view. I went to the more in depth thread on your guild website and noticed something interesting. Damage Received ( in damage per second ) Green Heroics: Felishanna 45 DPS Annaelisa 56 DPS Blue-con Orcs: Felishanna 12 DPS Annaelisa 21 DPS Even Scorpions: Felishanna 31 DPS Annaelisa 43 DPS Blue Falcons: Felishanna 16 DPS Annaelisa 29 DPS I think this needs to be addressed when discussing balance. If base healing is to be equal, disparity in defense should equal disparity in offense. Or more simply put, by the time a fight is over, all priest classes should have used their base healing to heal the same amount. Is it equal? I don't know. The above numbers don't show that it is. They also don't show what happens when a Templar uses some of their CC abilities. This still leaves you with two problems though: Group problem - Like many have stated, encounters are too easy and don't allow for defensive abilities to be noticed. Solo (small group) problem - Slower Killing = Slower XP = Less Loot Anyway, good job. I hope this study will help you get a few things you want.
Warden: Hierophantic Genesis: Increases health of target by 260-318 instantly and every 2 seconds. Stuns caster Inquisitor: Zealotry: Increases INT of group members by 55. Increases attack speed of group members (AE) by 42%. Stuns caster. Defiler: Maelstrom of Dismay: Decreases health of target encounter by 335-409 instantly and every 6 seconds. Decreases power of target encounter by 56-68 instantly and every 6 seconds. Increases health of group members (AE) by 223-273 instantly and every 6 seconds. Increases power of group members (AE) by 37-45 instantly and every 6 seconds. Stuns caster. Templar: Focused Benefaction: When target is damaged, this spell will heal target for 335-409. Stuns caster Fury: Porcupine: When target is damaged by melee, inflicts 186 damage on attacker. Increases mitigation of target vs all damage by 1400. Stuns caster. Can only be triggered 25 times. Mystic: Oberon: Wards target against 1156 points of all damage. Slowly regains absortion for its duration. Stuns caster. So clearly, from a healing standpoint, Templars, Mystics and Wardens have a clear advantage here. But I believe this set of spells to be relatively balanced and should not really be included in the other discussions. This is similiar to my standpoint on the 3 ancient spells everyone gets (which includes Back into the Fray).
I'd answered that question to my satisfaction nearly two months ago on the Fury forums: http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=17&message.id=8929&query.id=0#M8929 Frankly, I'm glad you've chosen to parse finally, as it adds to and confirms what other Furies were already saying. Data is good. More data is better. I've spoken to developers on their intentions. I've tried to relay that. If you choose to overlook or ignore that data, then you're setting yourself up for an inaccurate conclusion based on incomplete factual input - at least in my opinion. All priests are able to perform their baseline, least common denominator group roles equally. This does not mean all priests heal equally anymore than it means all fighters tank equally or all scouts have equal damage. What it means is that within a typical group, any healer should be able to perform the basic task assigned to that Archetype role. It does not mean all heals are equal, all healing is equal, or all priests heal equally. You're free to believe otherwise, but I've heard the intentions and I've seen numbers which outright refute the fuzzy math I've seen presented by those with an announced agenda regarding Templars vs. Furies. My only agenda is collecting data, keeping the facts accurate, and opining alternative viewpoints I feel are constructive. Don't get me wrong, the data you've collected here (and which should be reposted in the Fury forums, in my opinion) is a good indication of why parsing is good. I'm glad you've come around on the subject, to be honest. However, this is hardly a controversial topic. It's fairly well documented for some time that Furies are pulling in 200-300 DPS in soloing situations. It's not a subject that's being argued against very much for the past 2 months. What I'd love to see is some of your own parses in a melee heavy group (3+ fighters/scouts) with and without the use of Rebuke/Admonishment to determine if you feel that the group total DPS is or is not increasing by any specific amount. Try to hit the parses without an agenda, and give it a fair shot - that's all I ask. Drop Admonishment right off the bat when you do use it (rather than waiting to cast till a target's half dead). I think you'd be surprised to see how our contributions get overlooked. I certainly have been. What super high end groups? I'm level 55...finally. Most of the groups I've parsed out were all in the 53-57 range. We're not strutting around in all fabled gear with full spreads of Adept III/Master I spells. When this discussion started 3 months ago, I didn't OWN a bit of fabled gear. I was decked out in full common crafted or quested with all Apprentice IV's and Adept I's. I'm still hardly an example of "uber"...and most of my guild would get a chuckle to hear you say that. I realize you aren't in a large guild (11 members with 6 listed as alts), but it doesn't mean my guild is somehow cutting edge massive. We average only 20-25 members online each night (when everyone's in town, that is). We're a larger guild, but we're not megolithic. Everyone knows each other for the most part. We're still very much a family style guild. Certainly most of my members aren't walking around with enough time to level up two separate Tier VI healers as you are. In many ways, you're much more "uber" than the average Legionnaire. These also aren't specially constructed groups. My guild has a shortage of higher end fighters and mages. We make due with what we have - which is an abundance of Rangers and Swashbucklers. I also believe in playing to your strengths not your weaknesses. I recognize that a Templar's got many spells geared toward melee support. Therefore, when looking for extra members for my groups, I tend toward filling any positions I can with scouts over mages most of the time, and mitigation tanks over avoidance fighters. It doesn't mean I avoid mages altogether. It doesn't mean I eschew monks completely. However, all things being equal, I do have a definate preference toward those classes which are going to enhance my strengths. It only makes sense to me. You're free to not believe me. You're free to not like me. You're free to feel that I'm trolling. You're free to feel I shouldn't be allowed to post on these forums. All of the previous are statements you've made regarding me. However, it doesn't mean that (A) I have anything personal against yourself (I don't) nor do I feel it's going to affect what I've seen to be true. Ignore the numbers all you wish. However, if you're not even able to find groups to participate in, I fail to see how you're playing your Templar to its true potential. We've never been a great soloing class when compared to other classes. However, the fact remains that we can solo and this is leaps and bounds beyond what we had even in classic Everquest. Obviously, if your playstyle revolves around more soloing or small group play, you're going to find that Templars aren't living up to our full potential. In larger groups or even in raids, I think even you would find that Templars shine and shine brightly.
Add me to the consensus then. It's why I advocate Templars to find groups that push for more, harder, faster, and stronger. Push your groups and then you'll see the true strength of Templars. Current everyday run-of-the-mill content is simply not allowing us to fully stretch our legs, so to speak.
Yes, but that is exactly the problem. There is alot of content in EQ2 ranging from solo to group, from easy to very hard. While we are doing well with the hard stuff that really pushes our healing limits (one extreme of the game), we are not doing well with the other aspects of game play. Unfortunately, there is an awful lot of the 'run-of-the-mill' group and solo content in the game. Much of it I WANT to do because it helps my guild, my fellow guild members or gets me something I need/want. Can I 'technically' do the solo and run-o- the-mill stuff? Most certainly. However, when I am engaged in that type of content I want to delete my Templar. I am sorry, people can argue to their blue in the face, you will never convince me that is right or fair. Not when I can do the FULL range of content well with every other class I have played to date (post 30, Ranger, Dirge, Summoner and monk).
I think that is a general "problem" though. By nature of the design of these games, defensive/healing skills suffer from diminishing returns - there is only so much you can do before you get little or no benefit. Conversely, damage skills tend to have a linear relationship with gains. Double damage = half skill time. Thus, though for a Priest, healing/defense is theoritically more important in group play, this isn't true in solo play, which is why defensive oriented classes have tradtionally not been considered good soloers.
The point is, SOE in their infinite wisdom made it mandatory to solo. They took the lynchpin of their expansion, the ultimate quest in the game, with the largest reward and made huge chunks of it solo. They then threw in tens of other quests with excellent rewards and interesting plots and stories and made them solo as well for good measure. The minute it became compulsory, it became an issue you cannot shrug off with statements like "your class was never meant to be a good soloer". Because that just reads "your class was never supposed to finish the bulk of the expansion". Which is clearly drivel.
I can't argue "fun". My idea of fun is not someone else's. Personally, I'm not a fan of the current tradeskilling system...but to other players, that's a grand old hoot. To some players, raiding is the most horrible excercise ever...but to myself and some others in my guild, it can be a great time to spend with friends online. Some players wouldn't bother putting in the effort to lead a guild if you paid them outright, but for myself, that's the only way to truly enjoy the game. There's no parse for fun. There's no numbers for playstyle. However, that's why I feel there are so many choices to choose from. It's unrealistic to believe that every class can fit every playstyle. It's unrealistic to believe that every class can be equally "fun" to all players in every situation. My advice would be to find a class you enjoy playing - be it Templar or other - and play in that capacity. It's been five Live Updates since the Combat Revamp. At some point, we have to accept that this is the way the game is now. For good, bad, or otherwise, the changes have occured and it's unrealistic to believe that we'll see those changes outright reversed. We can argue for tweaks, adjustments, or specific changes - but to believe that we can, in any way, fully roll back the changes to "the good ole days" is (at least in my opinion) overreaching. At one point, Templars had wards and regenerations as well. However, during Beta, we learned that this was not going to be the "new" Templar. Even then, players claimed the class would fail without those tools. Obviously this was not the case. Even after the revamp, Templars are still the most popular priest class by far. The changes may not have been what you or I or anyone personally may have wanted in whole, but it is what it is and we are what we are now. Data collection points such as this thread confirm the situation as it currently exists, and serve a great purpose to show specific numbers. The numbers themselves are quite powerful, and yet it's still not enough to answer whether or not what we're seeing is intended. If it is, then all we're doing is shining that light on the reality as it was intended. All we're doing then is confirming for ourselves what we feel may or may not be correct. It's important that more Templars get involved in the parses - not only in soloing DPS situations, but in as many situations as we can realistically perform: undead, with and without buffs, with and without debuffs, with and without specific healing lines, with this tank or that tank, in small groups, large groups, raids, so on and so forth. The more data we have, the better conclusions can be drawn.
Actually, the statements made by SOE indicate specifically that not all classes were meant to solo with the same efficiency, but that all classes are intended to solo. If specific content is beyond your means, coming to these forums could be a way to either (A) gain wisdom and tactics that could assist in successful completion of such content, or in (B) shedding some light on an issue that might well be affecting a high percentage of fellow Templars.
My statements were not meant to "shrug off" the issue necessarily. My point is that the basic design of these types of games fundamentally means that this type of imbalance will occur. I think the mistake here isn't that classes are not balanced for solo, I don't think they can be. I think the mistake here is SoE labelling content as "solo" or "group" to begin with. The source of a lot of these complaints stem from that. On EQ1, for example, certain classes could do things solo that other classes couldn't, and while there was some contention to whether this was fair, it was generally accepted that that's just how things were. Adding a "solo" tag simply means that people look at it and say "I should be able solo that efficiently," and it sets up expectations by players which I don't know if they can ever really be achieved.
