View Full Forums : Druid Class concerns - Balance Issues


Fenier
11-29-2007, 09:08 AM
Balance concerns against other classes. Stay by this baseline - DPS== Mage without Pet, and 75% power of cleric heals.

-Fenier

Khauruk
11-29-2007, 12:09 PM
My main concern is that they keep monkeying around with the ratio of mage pet to spell dps. I know mages have been looking for more pet-based dps for several expansions, and seem to have been given that.

We shouldn't be on a sliding scale. Could you ask Rashere if there is any possibility that we can be put as a certain %age of wizards? A - it's a class recently revamped that should follow it's trends for a while yet. B - their dps figures come from one source, themselves. No way to mess that up.

wanderinglefty
11-29-2007, 03:07 PM
I would like to see all pet classes be able to customize their pets... as in the guy in the movie beast master... you could have different pets at different times.. Perhaps a 50 lv mage/druid/bst/necro/sk/shammy could have the same pet as a 70 lv mage/druid/bst if he/she chose to put experience into AA purchases. That might be to wild hair..but just a brainstorming idea.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Or perhaps there could be more variety of pets.. Bobo is fine and everyone loves him and hates him but perhaps also a Kodiak, a big white bear whatever those things are... perhaps for the bsts tigers, pumas, leopards.. Now that I think of it the mages have more variety... but shouldn’t other classes? Variety need not change the balance of power if done right,, could even be just a skin change with the same stats....<o:p></o:p>

Necros have different pets i think but the skins are about the same not much change..

Also if you add pets..keep it so at least some of the original ones have some use at something, for us its Bobo.. for the others i dont know..maybe for the mages its that water thing ect ect

Tenielle
11-29-2007, 04:28 PM
I've said it before even with NBW druid DPS is not mage minus pet. I'm not complaining because I've said from the getgo that our balance is elsewhere and I'm fine with the class the way it is without measuring it against others. But factually it just isn't - plain and simple.

I have any number of dozens of balls-to-the-wall DPS parses to prove it if I have to.

Alaene
11-29-2007, 05:32 PM
Khauruk's suggestion makes sense.

If druid dps, and mage non-pet dps, is baselined to x% wizzy dps, and mages get a bonus y%dps from their pets, this seems a much more sensible model.

Bear in mind mage non-pet dps includes their rampaging servant line, which is significant DPS in it's own right.

Fryar
11-29-2007, 06:06 PM
I'm worried our new group heal is for less than half of the clerics group heal, with a recast time also. If they want to limit the amount, kill the recast. If they feel the recast is needed, make it heal for 75% of the cleric heal.

Also, I'm still a little salty that rangers have a better single target cure for poison/disease, although that doesn't seem to matter on any events now.

Tenielle
11-29-2007, 06:19 PM
Also, I'm still a little salty that rangers have a better single target cure for poison/disease, although that doesn't seem to matter on any events now.

I remember this topic coming up before some time ago. I hate to derail but does anyone here actually enjoy curing? I find it to be the most tedious job of being a priest class personally and the events I currently dread the most are Lethar, Ambush and Stitch - just for the fact that they're curefests and I don't get any enjoyment out of it.

Unlike healing which actually requires skill, timing and planning, curing seems to me like a job that someone needs to ask me to do. I dunno, it may just be me but I would have no issue with every class in the game being granted the ability to at least cure themselves, if not others.

Fryar
11-29-2007, 06:50 PM
I don't enjoy curing, but when we're forced into it, I'd like to have the tools to do it.

Erianaiel
11-30-2007, 03:47 AM
Khauruk's suggestion makes sense.

If druid dps, and mage non-pet dps, is baselined to x% wizzy dps, and mages get a bonus y%dps from their pets, this seems a much more sensible model.

Bear in mind mage non-pet dps includes their rampaging servant line, which is significant DPS in it's own right.

It also would make life much easier on the developers themselves. Right now they have three classed locked in a weird dependency. They can not give Mages better pets, since that would kill off Druid DPS. Also, they can not give Mages better nukes since that (by their reasoning) would overpower Druids. If they unlink Druid and Mage nukes then they can adjust each class as they see fit and also allow Wizards to be adjusted more freely.

And frankly, the whole Druid nukes equals Mage ones thing is just a historical coincidence. Such similarities in e.g. healing have been quickly discarded in the past so I fail to see why it should apply here.


Eri

Tenielle
11-30-2007, 04:09 PM
I don't enjoy curing, but when we're forced into it, I'd like to have the tools to do it.

I see your point.

Fryar
11-30-2007, 06:40 PM
I'm also waiting until I finish the various DPS AAs before I comment on how I think we stack up there. As much as I'd like to just assume we're gonna come up short, I'm willing to take a look.

Aldier
12-01-2007, 12:25 AM
I think it is wrong that druids should be forced to gain several aa to increase dps to be considered balanced against a mage without those aa.

Equally geared/aa'd players of each class should be comparable.

Druid with 0 aa compared to Mage with 0 aa should be the same as Druid with max aa compared with mage with maxed aa. The differences could show in the choices people make for aa, but with all offensive done, or none, it should not matter.

Noken
12-01-2007, 11:29 AM
My main concern is that they keep monkeying around with the ratio of mage pet to spell dps. I know mages have been looking for more pet-based dps for several expansions, and seem to have been given that.


Very much agreed and well said. On raids and groups lately I see up to two thirds of mage dps coming from pets, and my dps roughly equal to that other third. That's prity weak.

In origional EQ we were roughly 60% the damage of wizards (612 vs 1024 nukes), now it's closer to 25%.

Fenier
12-05-2007, 02:53 PM
Forwarded a request by Druids who enjoy charming for an AA similar to Total Domination which would lower the chance of Charm breaking.

Also forwarding a Request to have Inferno Harvest increased to sixty seconds to bring it more in line with other killshot effects.

-Fenier

Nebakanezzer
12-05-2007, 04:33 PM
I have visited this board occasionally for a couple of years now, but this thread finally forced me to register and post. Speaking as a non-raiding mage, I find it somewhat troublesome to see so many druids wanting to attain my level of DPS. Druids are second only to Clerics for healing, second to none for mobility, have a decent variety of utility type spells and buffs, and without a doubt are the single most group friendly class in the game. A magician has mod-rods that no one wants, a DS (once apon a time our specialty) that lags behind what druids can now lay down, and DPS that is sub-par to virtually every "DPS" class in the game. You want better DPS, then give up some of those heals. Or give up root and snare.

Now believe it or not, I'm not posting sour grapes. I just feel that maybe you should consider your position in the game more carefully, and realize how tremendously valuable druids are to fill in almost any gap in a group (save tanking, and I'd leave that to the clerics, lol). Anywho, just my 2 cp and I hope I didn't offend anyone.

Neb

Elric91
12-05-2007, 05:56 PM
Forwarded a request by Druids who enjoy charming for an AA similar to Total Domination which would lower the chance of Charm breaking.


WoW..that would be cool. im an avid charm kiter and i would love to see somthing like that in our line up.

Speaking as a non-raiding mage, I find it somewhat troublesome to see so many druids wanting to attain my level of DPS. Druids are second only to Clerics for healing, second to none for mobility, have a decent variety of utility type spells and buffs, and without a doubt are the single most group friendly class in the game. A magician has mod-rods that no one wants, a DS (once apon a time our specialty) that lags behind what druids can now lay down, and DPS that is sub-par to virtually every "DPS" class in the game. You want better DPS, then give up some of those heals. Or give up root and snare

Now i know i have posted quite a few negative posts, to the point that im probably labeled as a complainer. However most of my posting has been limited to in-game mechanics such as continually de-grading focus effects, which affects all classes not just the druid, and Rediculous spell choices for our class which have little or no use (again not limited to druids, and my statement complaining about spells was not really a complaint, i can simply choose not to use them and use the other spells we have that are solid choices).

I personally agree with neb. i think druids, while a solid second to the classes i see as "pure casters" (mage,nec,wizzy), are still pretty solid in the dps department. alternating rain spells with nukes, and NbW spell line with GoM, i usually get comments like "wow..Rae sure is powerful dps" (Raechel is my druids name on bertox server), even from necro's and mages on occasion.

With the exception of the above mentined pure casters i can out dps most of the ppl in my grp most of the time if i try, by far. and the fact that mages can out dps us is, as ive stated in other posts, class balance. We can do more than them, and dps is all they can do. I for one would not want somone, who is argueably the second best healer class in the entire game, to be able to match my dps, if i was a mage.

I'm very happy where the druid class is on the dps department, and i'm all in favor of mages having more dps than druids, as i've always been in favor of class balance as long as it makes sense, and this makes complete sense to me.


EDIT : I Don't think you can compliment somone too many times, as we all like to hear good things said about what we do. so that being said, im gonna say again that i think you are doing a great job as our CC Fenier. i know i complain quite a bit but i thank you for being patient with a grouch like me.

Tenielle
12-05-2007, 09:48 PM
Ice dot

Fenier
12-05-2007, 09:51 PM
Have not had a chance to discuss anything with Prathun this week, as he is on vaction.

Noken
12-06-2007, 12:48 AM
This is two parses, one from myself - my best dps parse ever. The other from a mage in my guild, simply the most recent one on the same mob he's posted. Further bias is this: mine is one week more recent thus uses more SoF AA, I have more rk2 SoF spells, I have more AA regardless, better gear, better or equal focus and did no healing.

<table cellpadding="3" bgcolor="DimGray"> <tr bgcolor="Black"><td align="left" colspan="11"> <b> <font size="3" color="White"> Veldyn`s Shade on 12/4/2007 </font> </b> </tr> <tr bgcolor="Black"><td align="left"> <font size="2" color="White"> </font><td align="left"> <b> <font size="2" color="White"> Damage by </font> </b><td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="White"> Total </font> </b><td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="White"> Duration </font> </b><td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="White"> DPS </font> </b><td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="White"> Scaled </font> </b><td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="White"> Hits </font> </b><td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="White"> Max hit </font> </b><td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="White"> Avg hit </font> </b><td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="White"> Dmg to PC </font> </b><td align="left"> <font size="2" color="White"> </font> </tr> <tr bgcolor="Black"><td align="left"> <font size="2" color="White"> </font><td align="left"> <b> <font size="2" color="White"> Total </font> </b><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 287665 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 234 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 1230 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 1230 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 165 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 8153 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 1743 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 0 </font><td align="left"> <font size="2" color="White"> </font> </tr> <tr bgcolor="Black"><td align="left"> <font size="2" color="White"> </font><td align="left"> <b> <font size="2" color="White"> Noken </font> </b><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 274461 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 234 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 1173 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 1173 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 137 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 8153 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 2003 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 0 </font><td align="left"> <font size="2" color="White"> </font> </tr> <tr bgcolor="Black"><td align="left"> <font size="2" color="White"> </font><td align="left"> <b> <font size="2" color="White"> Noken`s pet </font> </b><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 13204 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 61 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 217 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 57 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 28 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 632 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 471 </font><td align="right"> <font size="2" color="White"> 0 </font><td align="left"> <font size="2" color="White"> </font> </tr> <tr bgcolor="darkgreen"> <td colspan="11" align="right"> <a href="http://gambosoft.com/forum/"> <i> <font size="2" color="gold"> Produced by GamParse v0.9.10 </font> </i> </a> </td> </tr> </table>

<table cellpadding="3" bgcolor="dimgray"> <tr bgcolor="Midnightblue"> <td colspan="11"> <b> <font size="3" color="white">Veldyn`s Shade on 11/25/2007 </font> </b> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="black"> <td> </td> <td> <b> <font size="2" color="white"> Damage by </font> </b> </td> <td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue"> Total </font> </b> </td> <td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="white"> Duration </font> </b> </td> <td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue"> DPS </font> </b> </td> <td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="white"> Scaled </font> </b> </td> <td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue"> Hits </font> </b> </td> <td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="white"> Max hit </font> </b> </td> <td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue"> Avg hit </font> </b> </td> <td align="right"> <b> <font size="2" color="white"> Dmg to PC </font> </b> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="Midnightblue"> <td> </td> <td> <b> <font size="2" color="white">Total</font> </b> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">643046</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">219</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">2937</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">2936</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">1961</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">14248</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">327</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">0</font> </td> <td> </td> </tr><tr bgcolor="black"> <td> </td> <td> <b> <font size="2" color="white">X</font> </b> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">227828</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">213</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">1070</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">1040</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">116</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">14248</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">1964</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">0</font> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="Midnightblue"> <td> </td> <td> <b> <font size="2" color="white">X`s pet</font> </b> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">219500</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">217</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">1012</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">1002</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">1232</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">1192</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">178</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">0</font> </td> <td> </td> </tr><tr bgcolor="black"> <td> </td> <td> <b> <font size="2" color="white">Zantik</font> </b> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">195718</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">206</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">951</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">893</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">613</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">1922</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="LightSkyBlue">319</font> </td> <td align="right"> <font size="2" color="white">0</font> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="darkgreen"> <td colspan="11" align="right"> <a href="http://gambosoft.com/forum/"> <i> <font size="1" color="gold"> Produced by GamParse v0.9.9 </font> </i> </a> </td> </tr> </table>

The point isnt that druids should do mage level dps, I agree we shouldn't. The point is the gap has grown far too large. Regardless of our heal abilities we're not clerics, we fall way short of cleric healing in every catagory, and so something else has to make up the difference. It's not buffs, thus it must be damage.

Noken
12-06-2007, 03:04 AM
I have visited this board occasionally for a couple of years now, but this thread finally forced me to register and post. Speaking as a non-raiding mage, I find it somewhat troublesome to see so many druids wanting to attain my level of DPS. Druids are second only to Clerics for healing, second to none for mobility, have a decent variety of utility type spells and buffs, and without a doubt are the single most group friendly class in the game. A magician has mod-rods that no one wants, a DS (once apon a time our specialty) that lags behind what druids can now lay down, and DPS that is sub-par to virtually every "DPS" class in the game. You want better DPS, then give up some of those heals. Or give up root and snare.

Now believe it or not, I'm not posting sour grapes. I just feel that maybe you should consider your position in the game more carefully, and realize how tremendously valuable druids are to fill in almost any gap in a group (save tanking, and I'd leave that to the clerics, lol). Anywho, just my 2 cp and I hope I didn't offend anyone.

Neb

Sorry but the game I play is the complete opposite. Every group wants: tank, cleric, slower, dps.. and sometimes puller. Druids are the ONE class that meets none of those criteria. IMO that's a major class balance issue in its own right.

The healing you think we're so good at has many drawbacks including less power, less efficiency, fewer tools, higher recasts, no arbs, inferior buffs and no rez. When things go bad we have only evac to lean on.

As my above post tries to indicate we aren't dps. I certainly don't get groups to do that, and don't make groups with myself as dps either.

caminrya
12-06-2007, 03:38 AM
I dont agree with what most call core group. I play both a cleric and druid. I allways want a druid in group when i play my cleric. why ?
1 track
2 back up heals
3 the ability Evac
4 attack debuffs and s nare
5 ports
6 and really in the end druids still have good dps(to me)
No other class can do so much (why i started playing a druid) Iam sure there areas that druids fall behind and need work. but in the end its a great class filled with many options (ps this post done on smartphone forgive the layout and other missing things as i have yet to find some symbols)

Fryar
12-06-2007, 03:58 AM
Ice dot!

/nod Tenielle

Fenier
12-06-2007, 10:44 AM
Sorry but the game I play is the complete opposite. Every group wants: tank, cleric, slower, dps.. and sometimes puller. Druids are the ONE class that meets none of those criteria. IMO that's a major class balance issue in its own right.
The unlined statement is not true 100% of the time. People -do- take Druids for DPS slots. Druids also -do- pull for some groups, esp in outdoor zones. not everyone min / maxes.

That isn't to say that we don't have issues, but that claim isn't valid.

Tanom
12-06-2007, 10:57 AM
I agree with Fenier, I myself pull in Loping Plains(when there are no lag spikes) using my calm spells and snare and when there is no need for me to heal(cleric group or Kite group per say) I will dps for a solid amount, we dont have the dps of a real dps class, but we can get good numbers up there you just need to know when to cast certain spell and how to put them together

Noken
12-06-2007, 01:16 PM
You can pull in loping plains, great, so have I. Move to any harder zone though, like say the indoor ones, like say the tier 3 and 4 ones. Rangers, paladin and necro I find pull in the same zones we do too, but it doesn't matter. If your class is stifled by not having the tools to progress, given this IS a progression game, than there's a problem. Why do we need the more clasical trinity group? because the upper tiered zones are very challenging. I don't see why I should grind AA in lower, slumming zones, when I'll be max within a month (thats not a joke). Why should I? A class shouldn't progress itself into uselesness.

Further class problem that are vaguely implied: a lot of zones currently need a backup / patch healer. In every regard shaman are a better compliment to clerics than we are. Their buffs stack, they're the slower, melee buffs have no equal, and their personal dps is about the same as ours anyway. In a lot of regards paladin are a better compliment too: their buffs stack and add more, they're also a backup tank, and their patch heal is .3 cast time, which can't be understated.

Any group a druid is main healing you're prity much over geared for. Please, I invite anyone who's wearing 300 hp / mana gear to try main heal in a tier 3 zone (that's using tier 2 armor to fight tier 3 mobs - a correct progression jump). Ok so we need a cleric, here's the buff stacking issue for HP (all in rk1)

cleric: Temerity (2457) + beastlord: viva (385) + focus (705) = 3547
cleric: Temerity (2457) + shaman: focus (935) + stamina (~140) = 3532
cleric: Temerity (2457) + paladin: brells (567) = 3024
cleric: Temerity (2457) + ranger: strength (213) = 2670
cleric: Kaerra (1563) + druid: skin (1062) = 2625

Of all the classes that buff HP we're the worst compliment at it, yet here we are meant to be #2 healer. There's a lot more to the healing role than just a single spell. There's also the joke of cleric is in many ways better off not using skin and instead using their armor line (if no shaman / beast), and paladin will never use our buffs. A druid who wants to main heal gets a lot of benefit out of pairing with a paladin. We can't even buff them!

SoE has been terribly generous giving HP buffs over the recent years:
100 from group LAA
100 from raid LAA
200 from personal tribute
200 from guild tribute
1500 from fellowship or guild standard
610 from nagafen familiar
1100 - 4200 cleric circle of divinity (% increase to hp)
500 general sturdiness

LoN is a better compliment at buffing than we are. Why even discuss class balance, the issue is userped by a card game.

Noken
12-06-2007, 01:31 PM
The unlined statement is not true 100% of the time. People -do- take Druids for DPS slots. Druids also -do- pull for some groups, esp in outdoor zones. not everyone min / maxes.

That isn't to say that we don't have issues, but that claim isn't valid.

So the exception, which generally only plays out in lower tier zones, is now accepted as the norm everywhere. It's good to hear our CC understands probability and progression.

Fenier
12-06-2007, 01:39 PM
There is a vast difference in saying that X doesn't work in Y location, and X doesn't work anywhere.

When you start saying X doesn't work Anywhere, the devs stop listening because they know it's not true.

There is no reason you can't pull Zeka, a tier 3 zone. You would likely have difficulty pulling Steam Factory or MMM, because they are indoors.

Your DPS options do not close off anywhere in the expansion. You can not say my nukes (any of them) do not work in Crystallos, for example.

Nodyin, just today even re-confirmed we should be able to heal any tank, anywhere in the expansion with the properly progressed armor and AA. He's presently making adjustments to ensure this remains true.

All of the following should be able to perform as a "tank" in group content:

Warrior - Shadow Knight - Paladin

All of the following should be able to perform as the main solo healer in a group with any of the above tanks:

Cleric - Druid - Shaman

That's the design goal.

The issue is, people want to be the BEST possible choice, while picking a generalist class, and that is seldom, if ever - going to happen. The issue would be if we were NOT a choice, but we are.

-Fenier

Naeyene
12-06-2007, 01:52 PM
Every group wants: tank, cleric, slower, dps.. and sometimes puller.
Corrected: Every group wants a healer, tank, slower, dps and sometimes a puller. A druid can fill 3 of those roles listed.

Noken
12-06-2007, 02:52 PM
It's good to see Nodyin understands that concept. The problem isn't of course we can't black and white do something. It's all shades of grey, and generally tints towards bias the harder and therefore more specialized the zone becomes.

Another class balace issue is so simple, it's in your origional post "75% power of cleric heals." Our current group heal is most definately NOT 75% the power of clerics.

Compare (all at rk1):

druid: crescentbloom -- 1860 hp, 1286 mana
cleric: word of vivacity -- 4250 hp, 1586 mana (+cures)
cleric: elixir of atonement -- 1203 hp / tick, 1995 mana
shaman: shade of renewal -- 842 hp / tick, 1621 mana

Druid heal is 44% the power of clerics. It also has a far longer recast. This already invalidates the rules.

Druid heal is 54% the efficiency of clerics. Efficiency isn't power so 75% may not be their target, but we need to fight the same fights for the same duration as they do with no remarkable mana tools to make up such a massive gap. Survival of the fittest is an emergency tool, its power greatly limited since no one over 65% gets anything.

To compare cleric to shaman, their HoT is 68% the power of clerics, 86% the efficiency. That seems a lot more reasonable than our deal.

It gets complicated comparing HoT to direct heals, but there's an issue there too. Specifically shaman HoT, when all focus and AA are applied heals about double what our direct heals do for about half the mana. They're the class with cani, not us.

If our blast heals are taken as comparison,

druid: puravida -- 3485 hp, 807 mana
cleric: solem light -- 4675 hp, 865 mana

Druid is 74.5% the power (fair enough), 79.9% the efficiency.

Khauruk
12-06-2007, 03:13 PM
They say we should heal at 75% the power of cleric, and 80% the efficiency. That shouldn't apply to only one spell...that should apply to our abilities as a whole. ATK debuffs are supposed to make up the rest of the gap as far as I understand their design goals.

Our spell vs. Cleric Spell:
Blast Heal ---- Blast Heal - matches rules, as seen above
???? ---- HoT
???? ---- Word of Vivacity
Crescentbl ---- Frantic Renewal (theirs has longer recast timer, but cures, heals far more, casts faster, 2.6x the mana efficiency, 2.91x the heal power)
???? ---- Group HoT
Adrenaline ---- Eleventh Hour (their only worthwhile fast heal line imo - 0.5 sec vs. 1.8sec cast, 3.53 vs. 3.73hpm (good), 15 sec. vs. 6 sec recast)
???? ---- Promised Restoration
Reptile (broken) ---- ????

So....yeah.

Noken
12-06-2007, 03:16 PM
Corrected: Every group wants a healer, tank, slower, dps and sometimes a puller. A druid can fill 3 of those roles listed.

What a group will accept and what they want aren't the same thing. Furthermore, I can tank in level 65 zones, so lets strike that off too. The exceptions that take place in easy outdoor zones, for which we're generally overgeared, aren't the rule - by definiton.

Naeyene
12-06-2007, 04:50 PM
Maybe I am the rarity and not the normal - but I don't ever say to my group, "OMG, we need a cleric."

My main is a Paladin and I tank everything from lower end stuff to T3 SoF content with a Druid as my main healer, typically with Bard slows... I do on occasion take a cleric on groups, not because we need them, but to give my very skilled druid a break from healing once in a while... :D

Druids can and do fill many different roles in groups, every day.

A druid who wants to main heal gets a lot of benefit out of pairing with a paladin. We can't even buff them!

But they can buff you! :D (and they can buff themselves similarly to a cleric...)
Paladin: Bthur (1252) + druid: skin (1062) + Brells (567) = 2880

Fenier
12-06-2007, 05:14 PM
Heh, that'll never change. You always need two things: someone to take the damage and someone to mitigate the damage (or a way to avoid taking damage at all).


Nodyin's dead right, though. Our goal for grouping is that you can pick any of the 3 main tanks and any of the 3 main healers and succeed. I think that tanks are currently in that situation, but I think we have more work to do on the healing side before that will be true. The secondary abilities of shaman and druids that reduce NPC's ability to do damage complicate the picture and make it a lot more difficult, so we're doing it in baby steps. The spells we added with SoF are a step toward that goal and after people have acclimated to those changes, we'll evaluate the situation again and do more if needed.


In the end, we want to make it as easy as possible to form a group and being able to choose from three healing classes instead of one helps greatly.


Rashere

Posted on EQlive

<!-- Edit Notes --> <!-- Attachments -->

Fenier
12-06-2007, 05:23 PM
Same thread:

Against most group content, a mitigated high end slow will reduce DPS by roughly 45%. The attack debuffs are an interesting problem. The large values in the debuffs were required to see much change when NPC attack was tuned too low. Now that NPC attack is tuned properly, those same large numbers can have a large impact on DPS, about as much as a high end slow but without any ability on the NPC to reduce the impact short of either inflating the NPC's attack values (in which case, anyone without the debuffs would be in a world of hurt) or making the NPCs resistant to spells (which obviously impacts a lot more).


Rashere

Noken
12-06-2007, 06:24 PM
Aside from the buff issue, as posted, paladin is the class to beat when paired with a druid. They have the emergency heals, buffs and rez needed to complete what druids are lacking.

I don't believe a specific tank class should be needed so we can do our job as healer. A shaman doesn't need an enchanter to slow, warrior doesn't need a knight, monk doesn't need a bard etc etc. We should have the complete set of tools needed to be a healer.

This is a clear class balance issue, and even one that spills on to bias against grouping with other classes, since when looking for a tank paladin > warrior or SK.

Fenier
12-06-2007, 07:11 PM
Same thread:

<cite>Etadanik wrote:</cite>He posted while I was posting, so I edited the post.

ATK Debuffs actually pose an interesting problem, the way he said it. Slow mitigation keeps the impact of slow down to a certain level, but higher ATK don't have the same effect on ATK debuffs. In fact, lower ATK does, but lower ATK also makes mobs incapable of really damaging classes with high AC. Hmm.<cite></cite>
Yeah, there's an obvious change we could make that would fix things...but its ugly as all sin.

We could rework older NPC attack values so they are in the right range for characters equipped for them. The main reason the debuffs are so large to begin with was because the attack skills of the NPCs were undertuned, so you required large changes to see much difference. If the attack values were in the right range, we could tone down the debuffs themselves so they give they are more balanced when an NPC's skills are properly set.
Making the change to the NPCs isn't all that hard. Simply increase attack by X% to get the average hit closer to the middle of the range and then decrease the damage the NPC does by an amount corresponding to the increase in average hit so the DPS works out the same. It has the added benefit of levelling out spike damage and making AC more useful against that content as well.

The problem lies in the impact. This would affect pretty much every normal NPC before SoF dating back to PoP or Luclin and its hard to account for what exactly it would do in all of those cases.


Rashere

Khauruk
12-06-2007, 07:11 PM
So Fenier - when all beta tuning was done this last time 'round, is it done w/ only groups of tank/cleric, tank/druid, tank/shammy rather than the "trinity"?

Fenier
12-06-2007, 07:16 PM
I am pretty sure they factor some level of slow used. But I know they took steps to make SoF content not drastically more difficult for groups without a slower.

That would be why Rashere posted what he did.

Fanra
12-06-2007, 07:58 PM
It seems that the ability of druids to debuff mobs is being taken into account when considering our healing.

It is important to remember that debuffing and healing combined, is much more work than just healing.

First off, in a group situation, the mob has to live long enough for the debuffing to make a difference. Next the druid has to target the mob and cast the debuffs, often three different ones with cast and recast times. Somehow, while doing this, the druid also has to target the group members and heal them as well.

Compare this with the cleric who just heals the group.

Also, it is very important to understand that the cleric has a number of fast acting spells and item (epic shield) that can heal very fast, while druids, if they are debuffing when suddenly a group member needs a heal, has to both switch targets and wait for recast time to expire and then deal with a very slow casting heal.

We do get one AA that can help. But it has a 15 minute recast time. Other than that, we have nothing.

So the next time some SOE designer brings up debuffing as something that balances our healing, remind them that it is only a very small difference with very large drawbacks.

Noken
12-06-2007, 08:56 PM
I've been trying to load that SoE thread all day, but for some reason there isnt enough connection to see the reply button (so awesome) all I can read is the text, no sigs, nothing.

Fenier, could you ask how we're meant to use those attack debuffs like they claim we should be able to, please?

In groups there simply isn't time to cast all 3, thus we must always face a full or nearly full power mob. Even if we aren't the healer spending 15+ seconds to cast them when mobs usually die within 45 seconds seems like a waste of time.

Fenier
12-06-2007, 09:10 PM
Fenier, could you ask how we're meant to use those attack debuffs like they claim we should be able to, please?

Posted the following:

I guess the main question I have for Rashere in this case is

Clerics, due to their stronger healing, do not require debuffs.

Shaman healing is balanced around Slow reducing the rate of damage. Slow in recent expansions have been given much lower cast times and innate resist adjustments. Their HoT spells also cushion initial mob impact to some degree, allowing for more time to land slow.

Druid healing, if factored with Attack Debuffs, currently take 3 debuffs (to achieve similar slow power). Are there plans to reduce the amount of lead time required to allow us to land the debuffs while still allowing us to keep the tank alive?

-Fenier

Noken
12-06-2007, 09:11 PM
Excellent, thank you.

Khauruk
12-06-2007, 09:49 PM
I guess I don't want to second guess Rashere, but his numbers seem wonky.

Slow mitigation has been taken as (granted, this is somewhat guesswork) slight being 25% of the slow....so, ~18% slow from casting a 70% slow. Partial being 50%, so a 70% slow becomes 35%, etcetera. By seat of the pants feel, I don't think I take 45% more damage when a mob is resisting slow...the 30% number for partial 65% seems more appropriate.

I also haven't seen anything showing a 45% dmg reduction from atk debuffs...the best I've heard was 29%. I believe that I don't see even 30% from casting Hand of Ro + Corona tanking with my BST (and he has crap AC). Maybe I should run a short parse of that.

Am I way off, or do his numbers sound a bit too good to be true?

Either way, it's good to see you have his ear on this Fenier - best of luck in getting something accomplished.

Fenier
12-06-2007, 09:59 PM
The value was based off conversations I had with him with a debuff value of -297. Pretty sure I used Hand of Ro, Gelid Frost and Fixation for that number, been a few weeks tho.

That is what rivals slow, and that is what is the issue where it takes us 3-4 spells to do that.

Fenier
12-06-2007, 10:04 PM
Excellent, thank you.

His reply:

It really depends what we end up doing with the debuffs. As it stands, it one of the few things keeping them from being too overpowered so we can't just roll them all into one debuff, but if we were to retune attack and the corresponding debuffs, it would make sense to make them more convenient to cast at the same time.


Rashere

Fenier
12-06-2007, 10:17 PM
<cite>FenierHuntingwolf wrote:</cite>
What power level would you be comfortable with the debuffs hitting, in relation to say slow's power to lower DPS (even tho they function differently.)<cite></cite>
I'm not really sure. The main difficulty is that there's nothing to offset the reduction like slow except making it hard to land the spell (and thereby all similar spells). With slow, we can make an NPC more difficult to manage by increasing his slow mitigation so bosses and named mobs aren't trivial with a slower and impossible without. With attack, that doesn't exist, so unless we add something, the damage reduction needs to be a somewhere in the middle whereby it provides a noticeable reduction without being required to defeat the encounter. Off the top of my head, a 2 point shift on the damage scale (or about a 20% change in average DPS) would probably fit that bill. That's about how much of a difference slow makes on high-tier SoF content where the mitigation level is higher.


Rashere
<!-- Edit Notes --><!-- Attachments -->

Fenier
12-06-2007, 10:38 PM
<cite>FenierHuntingwolf wrote:</cite>Lets play pretend!

Lets assume you make those changes.

That's a pretty large decrease in the potianal power of the debuffs as they stand now. It's my understanding that -100 Attack would just about be a 20% decrease, and we already have that in a spell called Hand of Ro, which already has innate mod of -200 FR, but twice the cast time of slow.

Where exactly, would the other possible 30%~ that we can reduce by stacking the different lines go? Or for that matter, what would become of those spells?

-Fenier
The big jump is only really in the new content. In the past, the swing was significantly less since the NPCs tended to hit low in the damage range already. And yeah, in SoF against a fully outfitted tank with level appropriate gear, you tend to shift the damage by 10% for every 50 points of attack. Realistically, we'd probaby want to look at the old impact (which I haven't measured enough to pinpoint right now) for a baseline.

That being said, establishing a nice, solid baseline would make it easier to tune healing spells. If we can realistically look at the situation and say "a druid is going to mitigate 20% of incoming damage for most NPCs", we can use that as the tuning point for druid healing abilities. In that light, a lower number is actually better since that means baseline heals would be closer to cleric levels. If the druid is averaging a 50% incoming damage mitigation, for instance, their heals would need to be that much less to be on par with cleric healing overall and they become a lot less capable of dealing with situations where their debuffs won't land...which is basically where shaman fall right now.

Rashere

same thread

Fenier
12-06-2007, 11:33 PM
Posted to Rashere:

http://forums.station.sony.com/eq/posts/list.m?start=100&topic_id=124481#1758518

I think, and this is just my opinion, that the readjustment may be the way to go.

The steps I would take:

1: Establish previous baseline (lets use 20%)
2: Remove the -ATK score from Hand of Ro (make it a true upgrade to Ro's Fiery Sundering)
3: Make Fixation of Ro and Sun's Corona not stack.
4: Make Sun's Corona 1.5 cast time, with a -100 Fire Resist mod, and an -attack adjustment equaling 20% on most mobs
5: Make Hoar Frost / Gelid Frost a 1.5 cast time with a -100 Cold resist mod and an -attack adjustment equaling, say 15% on most mobs (similar relation to MR slow to DR slow for Shaman) This wouldn't stack with Corona.
6: Increase Druid Healing at minimum 5% to make up 100% of cleric healing (assuming Druid heals are 75% power now + 20% debuff lowering is still a 5% variance, 10% after you factor in cleric innate 5% bonus)

This obviously doesn't solve the issues with Druid group healing, but That would solve your issues without the need to actually remove any of the existing spells.

-Fenier

Noken
12-07-2007, 12:12 AM
That seems reasonably parallel to shaman in high end content. The descrepancy then is a high end zone with attack debuff would likely be doing 20% as it's tuned for, but a low end zone may be closer to 15% with the same debuff since the tanks AC would already be in excess.

Shaman slow would have the opposite effect, also being 20% in high end zones but due to less slow mitigation would be considerably more powerful at the low end.

While I solidly believe it's the harder zones we need a boost in most that's still not an ideal set of circumstances.

Keyera
12-07-2007, 02:49 AM
hey all

i have been away from the game for awile, just started playing again about 3 months ago.

anyway, i would just like to say from the druids i have played with, they are in very high demand for groups. granted i mainly just do guild groups, but any of our druids are main healing the new zones. or dpsing if needed.

right there being able to do both of those "good" "should" make me jelous, since all i can realy do in these new zones is heal. yet i have read so many complaints. i just don't ubderstand.

then, you say your group heal isn't 75% as good as ours.........psst i only use group heals in raids. i do admit i use the aa heal over time in instances that i have to use normal DvA (not 2.0), don't you have an aa heal over time as well? otherwise group heals suck, so complainig about a heal spel that doesn't mean that much.......

now lets see, you can main heal, you can dps good, you can pull (outdoors), most prefer your buff because of the mana regen (don't say they don't, it isn't because of hp or whatever, it is mana regen, ours doesn't give that) and so what if clerics don't want your buff? we do want it IF we have ALL of the other buffs. you can evac, you can if needed summon dead to the group... is a nice list of abilities.

now the kicker, you have the one spell i would die for ;-P that you take so much for granted. snare /drool

sorry if i offend anyone, i havent visited this site in over a year, maybe i should of just remained quiet.

have a happy holidays everyone, be safe

morderir
12-07-2007, 08:44 AM
WARNING , long post :)

Trying to cover the aspect one by one, healing spell first .
the affiched goal of the dev is to have the healing side of the druid at 75% power 70% efficiency of a cleric.( and balanced against shamy i think )

Is this the case ?
personnal opinion: i don't thing so . some spell may fit the bill but in the whole some tools are lacking, some are broken , some are outdated , some far behind the goals.
first post for the pre 50 level ( one quick thought to the too rare newbie who may begin a druid).

------------------------------------------
standard heal ( 3,75 cast time)
cleric 49 : Greater Healing Light - heal 900 - cost 250
shaman 29 : Greater Healing - heal 350 - cost 115
druid 29 : Greater Healing - heal 350 - cost 115
druid 44 : Healing Water - heal 425 -cost 150 (quested)

group heal
cleric 45 : Word of Healing - heal 758 -cost 425
shaman : none
druid : none
complete heal
cleric 39 : Complete Heal - heal 7500 - cost 400
shaman : none
druid : none
hot
cleric 44 : Celestial Healing - heal 180x4 - cost 225
shaman 44 : Stoicism -heal 160X4 - cost 180 (quested,neg effect)
druid : none
regen
cleric : none
shaman 39 : Chloroplast - 10/tick(max 205) - cost 200
druid 42 : Chloroplast - 10/tick(max 205) - cost 200

regen group
cleric : none
shaman : none
druid 42 : Pack Chloroplast 10/tick(max 140) - cost 400
------------------------------------------------------------------
gh vs ghl : 40% power, eff 80%
hw vs ghl : 47% power, eff 78%
stoic vs clh : 88% power, eff 109%. but neg effet ( snare,slow)
note that the hot(s) have a worse efficiency than the standard heal.

Analysis (feel free to disagree, ist my personnal opinion, not fact:) ) :
a long time ago , before ooc regen, before clarity potion vendor, in the velious era , i found myself as the group healer in velk lab with greater healing as my only option ..... it still make me have nightmare...:).

the repartion of the tools begin to show ( hot for shammy, direct for druid).

The quested/ykesha era druid spell show only a tiny progress from the regular spell, worthless in my opinion.
The biggest problems in my opion are
- lack of tool for the druid : only one direct heal vs dh,ch,group heal,hot) for the cleric and dh+hot for the shammy
- lack of hps specialy in the top of the level range. around 58/sec spaming gh vs 150 for ghl and 500 for complete, shammy may have better result than druid casting stoicism betwen direct heal.

the introduction of a group heal before 50 "may" give some breath for the druid in some situation , but the introduction of a more potent direct heal is really necessary in the level 40+ for both the druid and shamy. ( as a side note lucy mention some spell that may fit but they never get live )

The global impact of the regen line have been considerably reduced since the introduction of ooc regen. it might be useful to have these line upped along all level ( giving it a more meaning full role in combat heal since the role of out of combat recovery is no longer meaninful.). perhaps doubling the regen and cutting the duration ?

next post for the 50 -60 range:whistle:

ohioastro
12-07-2007, 09:30 AM
We have to be careful here to avoid a revamp that ends up with the spells being drastically neutered. There is an opening here for druids to do something as powerful as slow. Let's not throw that away.

morderir
12-07-2007, 11:00 AM
comparative for the 60 and under
------------------------------------------
standard heal ( 3,75 cast time)
cleric 58 : Ethereal Light - heal 2000 - cost 490
shaman 55 : Chloroblast - heal 1044 - cost 331
druid 60 : Nature's Touch - heal 1491 - cost 457

fast heal
cleric 51 : Remedy - heal 483 - cost 167 cast 1,75
cleric 59 : Ethereal Remedy - heal 975 - cost 400 cast 2,75
shaman : none
druid : none

complete heal
cleric 39 : Complete Heal - heal 7500 - cost 400
shaman 58 : Kragg's Mending - heal 1950 - cost 400 (75% max)
druid 58 : Tunare's Renewal - heal 2965 cost 400 (75% max)

group heal
cleric 57 : Word of restoration - heal 1818 -cost 898 ( cure
poison.disease)
shaman : none
druid : none

group ch heal
cleric 60 : Word of Redemption - heal 7500 - cost 1100
shaman : none
druid : none

hot
cleric 59 : Celestial Healing - heal 300x4 - cost 300
shaman 60 : torpor - heal 300X4 - cost 200 (neg effect)
druid : none

group hot
cleric 60 : Ethereal Elixir - heal 300X4 - cost 975
shaman : none
druid : none

regen
cleric : none
shaman 52 : Regrowth 20/tick (max 205) - cost 300
druid 54 : Regrowth 20/tick (max 205) - cost 300

regen group
cleric : none
shaman 56 : Regrowth of Dar Khura 20/tick (max 205) - cost 600
druid 58 : Regrowth of the grove 20/tick (max 205) - cost 600

other
cleric 54 : Protection of Vie partial absorb ( 10%) 1200 do
shaman : none?
druid 60 : Nature's Recovery over regen 30/tick ( 30 tick)

aura :
cleric : 1% mele dom absorption
shaman : n/A
druid : 10 hp/tick regen
-----------------------------------------------------------
the direct heal give 52% power and 77% efficiency for the shamy vs cleric
74% and 80% for the druid

the druid and shamy get the %ch , at 26% power 26% efficiency for the shamy and 39% / 39% for the druid
shamy got an upgrade to their hot
druid and shamy achieve parity on regen.
druid gain an over regen which may be maintenant on only one-two target due to duration/recast.
this spell will never get upgrade
druid aura give another small other regen
cleric gain group ch, snap heal and group hot.
this give 2 main healing tool ( more effective than shamy) , shamy 3 cleric 7
druid get a small boost on regen on top .
worth noting that cleric now have a notable damage reduction tool via the vie line ( 10%) . not sure that the aura stack.
the global impact of the regen line have been considerably reduced since the introduction of ooc regen (see former post), the over-regen and aura lessen this a bit ( effectivly doubling regen)
globally druid and shamy seem in parity for the healing power.
the 2 are missing group heal tool and emergency heal tool .

next post on the 61-75 level

Khauruk
12-07-2007, 11:26 AM
Fenier:

Problems as I see it with that - Shammies are able to use MR slow for virtually every encounter that they come across in current content (well, essentially since Luclin/PoP). Disease slow as a game mechanic is dead, which is why afaik, disease slows haven't been upgraded since Luclin. Your proposal limits druids much more drastically in recent content (FC vs. Ashengate for example).

20% number:
Rashere believes that slow is a 45% dps reducer in normal current content. This would require us to have some drastically better healing vs. shammies to be effective. While we might have better blast heals, I def. disagree that our healing power/efficiency is that much better than shamans currently have (esp. with worthless Reptile spell).

Mana - I def. agree with revamping current/old spells. Just please lobby to keep the relatively low mana cost! I can just imagine how expensive a neo-Prathun spell would be! :)

Possible expansion - it might be a lot to ask for currently, but I still firmly believe that we should have 2 total lines of debuffs - one physical (-atk, -AC), one arcane (-resists, +spell damage), *or* one defensive (-atk), one offensive (-resists, -ac, +spell damage). Your proposal would definitely help us out some, but the total number of debuffs available/required to effectively debuff a mob is still huge.

morderir
12-07-2007, 11:53 AM
-- 75 and under ---
standard heal ( 3,75 cast time)
cleric 73 : sacred light - heal 4260 - cost 795
shaman 73 : Ahnkaul's Mending - heal 2788 -cost 742
druid 72 : Pure Life - heal 3176 - cost 742

fast heal
cleric 71 : sacred Remedy - heal 2285 - cost 530 cast 1,75
shaman : none
druid : none

complete heal
cleric 39 : Complete Heal - heal 7500 - cost 400
shaman 58 : Kragg's Mending - heal 1950 - cost 400 (75% max)
druid 64 : karana's Renewal - heal 4680 cost 600 (75% max)

group heal
cleric 69 : Word of Vivification - heal 3450 + cure all - cost 1357
shaman : none
druid 75 : Lunarlight - heal 1695 - cost 1182 Recast 18 sec

group ch heal
cleric 60 : Word of Redemption - heal 7500 - cost 1100
shaman : none
druid : none

hot
cleric 72 : Sacred Elixir - heal 1424X4 - cost 1044
shaman 73 : Halcyon Breeze - heal 1203X4 - cost 735
druid : none

group hot
cleric 75 : Elixir of Redemption - heal 1097x4 - cost 1819
shaman 75 : Specter of Renewal - heal 768X4 - cost 1479 recast 18
druid : none

emergency heal ( 30 sec recast/ 3 sec cast)
cleric 70 : Desperate Renewal - heal 4935 +cure - cost 1375
shaman : none
druid 75 : Adrenaline Surge -heal 3439 + 30%chance to proc a small do absorb - cost 991

decaled heal
cleric 73 : Promised Renewal - heal 8500 afer 18 sec - cost 500
shaman : none
druid : none

reactive proc
shaman 72 : lassitude proc slow and hot for ? -cost 500.
druid 68 : skin of the serpent - cost 750 - heal via proc between 0 and 7200 depending.. ( nerfed/broken)
cleric : none

regen
cleric : none
shaman 71 : Spirit of the Stoic One 72/tick (max 205) - cost 412
druid 66 : oaken vigor 60/tick (max 205) - cost 343

regen group
cleric : none
shaman 74 : Talisman of the Stoic One 72/tick (max 205) - cost 974
druid 69 : blessing of the grove 60/tick (max 205) - cost 845

other
cleric : rallied aegis of Vie partial absorb ( 10%) 2469 do - group
shaman : none?
druid 60 : Nature's Recovery over regen 30/tick ( 30 tick) - single

aura :
cleric : 3% mele dom absorption
shaman : n/A
druid : 30 hp + 4 dis. counter/tick regen
--------------------------------------
the direct heal give 65% power and 70% efficiency for the shamy vs cleric
75% and 79% for the druid

the parity (hot for shamy , direct for druid seem achieved)
the druid get a ch upgrade roughly equal to 50 % of the cleric.
druid regen line seem abandoned.
druid and shamy gain group heal (hot/direct) but not very efficient with 60% of the healing power of the cleric and with a 18 sec recast .....

druid gain a reactive heal proc ...personnal opinion:but it get overnerfed (nb of proc , delay of proc,downward scalability) so getting from "staple spell" status to "very situationnal" spell status
shamy get reactive slow+hot
druid gain an alternate " emergency health"
still missing a fast casting heal in my sense , and most of the new tools get drawback(and nerf) which really need to be rewiewed.
the regen line seem to be shamy only for on now.
the aura line of the cleric scale upward far better than the druid one ( 30 hp/tick ( equivalent of 5dps) vs 3% dom absorption)
if it stack with the vie line ist now 13% dom absorption .

Fenier
12-07-2007, 01:35 PM
We have to be careful here to avoid a revamp that ends up with the spells being drastically neutered. There is an opening here for druids to do something as powerful as slow. Let's not throw that away.

You missed the part where right now, our debuffs are not factored into our healing. You can bet they will be when they rebalance healing (which Nodyin and Rashere said they are working on).

This leads to the issue of, if we can reduce incoming damage by X% - our heals may infact be scaled back so Healing + Debuff == 100%, as it is in the shaman model in most instances.

It is more logical to only ask for a 20-30% reduction, and have higher powered heals, so we are not at a major disadvantage if something is exceptionally resistant. This way may also allow for them to not code in innate attack debuff mitigation in the same way slow was done.

-Fenier

Fenier
12-07-2007, 01:41 PM
Problems as I see it with that - Shammies are able to use MR slow for virtually every encounter that they come across in current content (well, essentially since Luclin/PoP). Disease slow as a game mechanic is dead, which is why afaik, disease slows haven't been upgraded since Luclin. Your proposal limits druids much more drastically in recent content (FC vs. Ashengate for example).

Well, until TBS, we had no cold based ATK debuff at all, so at the time of TSS launch that wasn't even possible.

Additionally, most exp content is only resistent to one resist type. Raids are more prone to have high MR, so mobs (Ture and Jelvan come to mind off hand) require DR slows.

While you can land a MR slow on Ture, for example, the MR is sufficantly high enough that most people DR first then attempt to land the MR slow.

I personally don't see how it limits us -that- much. Additonally, MR slows have not increased in power of slow since Kunark.

Possible expansion - it might be a lot to ask for currently, but I still firmly believe that we should have 2 total lines of debuffs - one physical (-atk, -AC), one arcane (-resists, +spell damage), *or* one defensive (-atk), one offensive (-resists, -ac, +spell damage). Your proposal would definitely help us out some, but the total number of debuffs available/required to effectively debuff a mob is still huge.

Personally speaking, I would be ok with having one debuff for atk/ ac and one for resist + spell damage. A group mob wouldn't require 2 or even 3 of them, the main focus in exp groups would be for the -atk/ac.

This lowers the amount of debuffs on Raids from 6 to 3, while retaining roughly the desired power level.

Fenier
12-07-2007, 02:03 PM
<cite>Juzam_Djinn wrote:</cite>
<cite>Rashere wrote:
</cite>It really depends what we end up doing with the debuffs. As it stands, it one of the few things keeping them from being too overpowered so we can't just roll them all into one debuff, but if we were to retune attack and the corresponding debuffs, it would make sense to make them more convenient to cast at the same time.
Rashere
How is it overpowering though, except maybe at the group level? They all already stack, and in a raid all boss mobs that they will land on will have them all on it. In a group setting, it would allow druids the same level of functionality as shamans and slow. In a group setting, as long as the druid isn't the main healer, they could very well sit and waste the time to try and use all of our attack debuffs on a mob anyway. The only thing that restricts this from happening is common sense and the time it takes to kill mobs that are actively being killed and not CC'ed.<cite></cite>The group level is what I need to concern myself with first and foremost. Despite the raiding bent of these boards, actual raiders are a distinct minority of the playerbase of EQ. The vast majority of play takes place at the single group level and that's where we need to look at impact first and foremost.



For raids, the answer to the attack debuffs is pretty simple...you can assume that there will be at least one druid on any raid and if the NPC allows the spells to land, you can assume they will be debuffed so you can build the NPCs attack rating to be high enough that they are "in balance" once debuffed. If you do that at the group level, you essentially force every group to have a druid (or for us to share the attack debuffs across a lot more classes).


Rashere


Same thread

Tenielle
12-07-2007, 05:18 PM
If you do that at the group level, you essentially force every group to have a druid

EXACTLY!! Now how could that possibly be a bad thing? :wiggle:

Fanra
12-07-2007, 06:39 PM
Fenier,

I see you have addressed the concerns I raised about the fact that debuffing and healing are two jobs that must be performed by the druid at the same time, while clerics only have one job.

However, I don't think it has been communicated as strongly as it should be.

Again, group mobs normally die too fast for our debuff to matter much. If a druid is to have their debuff matter, it must be cast on the mob as the mob arrives...and that means aggro.

Shaman have chain and clerics wear plate. We wear leather.

Mobs just hit too hard and die too fast for debuffing to be practical on group mobs.

Hitting too hard means that if you spend the time debuffing, the tank will die from lack of heals while you have the mob targeted. It also means that if you catch aggro because you debuffed, you are dead.

Dying too fast means that by the time your debuffs land, the mob is already half or even totally dead. So what was the point?

I see the designers are saying, "Yes, yes, we know this" and then they just proceed to marginalize these problems as unimportant or minor problems that can be "solved" through creative number spinning.

Debuffing is NOT the answer to druid healing problems unless the game is DRASTICALLY changed from its current state.

Noken
12-07-2007, 06:40 PM
Regarding dps, the first step is easy and doesn't change anything about the balance situation with mages. Just take a page from the wizard book and reduce nukes to be 3 or 4 second cast with the possibility of a higher recast. While it's possible the situation would still be out of line afterwards we'd at least get a much clearer picture of where to go next.

Prathun said he'd like lower cast times for nukes, I'd like to see some though put into that.

Fenier
12-07-2007, 06:41 PM
I'm going to play devil's advocate.

If mobs die so fast - why bother to slow them?

Fenier
12-07-2007, 06:42 PM
Regarding dps, the first step is easy and doesn't change anything about the balance situation with mages. Just take a page from the wizard book and reduce nukes to be 3 or 4 second cast with the possibility of a higher recast. While it's possible the situation would still be out of line afterwards we'd at least get a much clearer picture of where to go next.

Prathun said he'd like lower cast times for nukes, I'd like to see some though put into that.

I plan to ask him again next week when he's back from vaction if this is even a we're looking at this down the road type thing.

Khauruk
12-07-2007, 09:25 PM
I'm going to play devil's advocate.

If mobs die so fast - why bother to slow them?

If I'm in a good dps group doing non-assbeat content and bounce a slow w/ my bst, I often *don't* bother to recast. Once the recast timer is up, it just doesn't feel worth it. With slow mitigation, I don't think anybody has ever noticed the damage difference.

Noken
12-07-2007, 11:27 PM
Another balance issue I've had for years is resurrect. Everyone has their opinions, but there's one solution that comes up often and I think is quite agreeable:

Could the resurrect timer on corpses get an extension, to say 6 hours?

There's a lot more problems than just that, including my belief that any group with a druid healer (in challenging content) prity much requires a paladin, but at least with a longer timer the group isn't handed such an arbitrary deadline.

The immersion is still completely out of whack, in that we always return to the guild lobby after, but at least the group isn't broken.

Woodelfous
12-08-2007, 03:39 AM
Balance concerns against other classes. Stay by this baseline - DPS== Mage without Pet, and 75% power of cleric heals.

-Fenier

Well I think along with this.... if our spells are 75% less effective....then the mana cost should be 25% less. I don't think we need to be moved much in healing or DPS... but I would like to see us gain some gound in mana stability.

Erianaiel
12-08-2007, 06:05 AM
Fenier,

I see you have addressed the concerns I raised about the fact that debuffing and healing are two jobs that must be performed by the druid at the same time, while clerics only have one job.

However, I don't think it has been communicated as strongly as it should be.

Again, group mobs normally die too fast for our debuff to matter much. If a druid is to have their debuff matter, it must be cast on the mob as the mob arrives...and that means aggro.

Shaman have chain and clerics wear plate. We wear leather.

Mobs just hit too hard and die too fast for debuffing to be practical on group mobs.

Hitting too hard means that if you spend the time debuffing, the tank will die from lack of heals while you have the mob targeted. It also means that if you catch aggro because you debuffed, you are dead.

Dying too fast means that by the time your debuffs land, the mob is already half or even totally dead. So what was the point?

I see the designers are saying, "Yes, yes, we know this" and then they just proceed to marginalize these problems as unimportant or minor problems that can be "solved" through creative number spinning.

Debuffing is NOT the answer to druid healing problems unless the game is DRASTICALLY changed from its current state.

It does not need to be drastically altered.

Druid healing is centered around relatively slow and large heals.
Druid debuffing reduces spike damage.
This would make more sense to be countered by heal over time, which is a Shaman strength (and Shamen reduce overall damage and would benefit more from bigger heals as a result...)

Druid heals need to be slightly quicker so they can react more effectively instead of being locked into an action for too long. Unless the Druid is heavily AAed tanks run the risk of getting quaded to death in the time it takes to cast that heal. As the numbers keep getting bigger and bigger, this risk increases (due to the percentages staying the same meaning the gap in absolute numbers getting steadily larger and eventually too large).

Druids need a pre-heal that does not draw aggro. Something that can be cast on incoming and that sits around for a short time to heal damage as it is dealt, rather than something that must be cast after the fact. Right now we are frequently forced to start healing before the tank engages and often splat as a result because the tank does not have enough aggro yet.
This new spell line (! it should start before level 80 as there are problems with Druid healing at about Gates of Discord levels) can have a leisurely cast and long recast (45 or even 60 seconds) as its sole purpose is to buy the Druid about 4 seconds to cast that first debuff. I am thinking 3 spells for level 55, 65 and 75 that each pre-heal the amount of damage monsters typical for those levels can do unmitigated in about 4 seconds. (It can tack on a hefty aggro multiplier to discourage its use during combat)

And an AA progression around the levels 60, 70 and 80 mark that each shave off half a second off the hastened cast time of both direct heal spell line and the direct fire damage nukes, at the expense of adding half a second recast for the first rank, one second for the second rank and and and a half second for the third rank. This set of AAs is rather powerful though and needs to be paired with limitations to Druid mana regen to prevent it from being overpowering.


Eri

Fenier
12-08-2007, 06:59 AM
About the spell haste AA:

EQ is maxed at 50% spell haste.

Looking at heals, you get 30% Item focus, 10~% from Cleric Spell haste leaving you with a 40% hasted spell. At most, you would only be able to gain that last 9-10%, but I consider it unlikely they are going to give us spells which we can innatly cast for 1.9 Seconds (3.75 Base)

Nukes are a similar situation, 23% From items, 10-11% from Cleric Spell Haste and 10% from Quick Damage means we're already casting spells at 43% haste. You stand to gain a maximum of 7%.

In either case, giving us such an AA pretty much removes, or at least diminishes the need for Clerical Spell haste and / or Item Focus. I don't see that happening, even if the cast time was added to the recast.

-Fenier

Noken
12-08-2007, 12:50 PM
No ability anywhere, since EQ was created, has touched the 2.25 second recast. To me that's the place to look. AA or buff I think the ability to lower that time is something we could strongly benefit from.

Erianaiel
12-08-2007, 03:11 PM
About the spell haste AA:

EQ is maxed at 50% spell haste.


Which is why I proposed not additional spell haste, but shaving off an absolute amount of cast time. 3 times 0.5 seconds is a bit much, but 3 times 0.4 (and increasing the recast by 2.5 seconds at the same time) seems a reasonable target. It would, after being fully equipped with spell foci and buffs allow the heals to go off in slightly more than 1 second.


Looking at heals, you get 30% Item focus, 10~% from Cleric Spell haste leaving you with a 40% hasted spell. At most, you would only be able to gain that last 9-10%, but I consider it unlikely they are going to give us spells which we can innatly cast for 1.9 Seconds (3.75 Base)


I think the reasoning is sound enough to consider it at least instead of dismissing it, amongst ourselves, out of hand.

Druid healing is not lacking power per se, but rather the ability to deliver it quickly enough. We have been asking for group heals and heals over time for a long time now, and we have been given creative versions of those abilities at somewhat limited utility. Mostly, like all of the creative spells, their use is either time limited or rather situational. This approach would allow Druids by the time they are more frequently confronted with fast and hard hitting monsters, to deal with that situation more efficiently. The added power by the shorter cast time is balanced first by the longer recast time (bringing the HPS of a heal down actually) and second by the higher mana usage when chainging those spells. That alone is garantueeing that Druids are not going to chain cast spells indefinitely.


In either case, giving us such an AA pretty much removes, or at least diminishes the need for Clerical Spell haste and / or Item Focus. I don't see that happening, even if the cast time was added to the recast.


I do not think it is such a bad idea that Druids are not dependent on a cleric buff. This suggestion would allow us to function more easily in high end content in the absense of a Cleric without eliminating the benefit of their buffs.

If a permanent effect is too problematical for the developers, the core of the idea would still work if it is an activatable AA (with e.g. 60 seconds duration, 10 minutes recast). The idea is to give Druids a quick speed boost to their staple spells when needed (i.e. when more than one group member is taking on serious damage at the same time). In a good group this should not happen often, but if it does at least with this AA a Druid can better handle the healing than he or she can now.

How would the following work?

Tunare's Touch

Rank 1 - cost 4 AA
Requirement: Level 60
60 seconds duration and 600 second recast. Timers linked with Rank 2 and 3
removes 0.4 second cast time off the eligible spells after spell haste is taken into account. Increases the recast time by half a second.

Rank 2 - cost 6 AA
Requirement: Level 70
60 seconds duration and 600 second recast. Timers linked with Rank 1 and 3
Removes 0.8 seconds of the cast time after spell haste effects of all eligible spells. Increases their recast by 1.5 seconds.

Rank 3 - cost 8 AA
Requirement: Level 80
60 seconds duration and 600 second recast. timers linked with Rank 1 and 2
Removes 1.2 seconds of the cast time of all eligible spells after spell haste effects are taken into account. Increases their recast by 3 seconds.

(* or 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9 seconds respectively to allow the developers room to expand spell haste focii and effects to reach the 50pct cap without dropping spell cast times under 1 seconds through this AA)

Eligible spells are the 3.75 second cast time direct heals.

The fire based nukes (scoria line) would be preferable to be eligible as well, but this is not a necessity. (Or can be given their own separate AA spells since the cast time reduction for those could be slightly bigger than for the heals).


Before giving up with a 'the developers will never do this' I would like to discuss if this adresses a real problem that Druids have when healing, if it would solve (or alleviate) that problem and if it would have exploitable side effects that may make the developers reject it and that can be prevented through a different design or approach.

After all, the developers also said Druids would never get an HoT or a group heal, but here we have been given them anyway. If we can demonstrate a real problem and argue a solution we can always present ideas for their consideration.
I prefer to discuss things constructively, even if the conclusion is that either the problem does not exist or the solution does not adress the problem accurately enough. I do hower dislike defaitism. We do not have to make decisions for the developers based on what we think they will and will not do.


Eri

(p.s. I also think that the rune-like idea helps Druids more than this AA, but nobody seems to have commented on that one at all)

Fanra
12-08-2007, 06:55 PM
Looking at heals, you get 30% Item focus, 10~% from Cleric Spell haste leaving you with a 40% hasted spell.
I'm sorry, but aren't we looking at group situations where the druid is the main healer?

Where exactly does a cleric buff fit in this? Druids are supposed to carry around a pocket cleric to give them spell haste?

If I have a cleric on hand to give me spell haste, then he should be healing, with me only healing as his back up.

Sorry, Fenier, you lost me on this. Obviously we are talking about two different things here.

P.S. Also, is every druid given a 30% spell haste item just by hailing an NPC in PoK? Because I want one of those. My best beneficial spell haste item gives me 30% spell haste...for level 70 and under spells. This is the main reason why I'm still using my level 70 heal as my main heal. When they allow me to trade it for an item with the same (or better) stats with a level 80 focus, let me know.

Fenier
12-08-2007, 08:29 PM
You can't limit an AA to just group content. It's going to carry over into raid encounters so you have to account for things like 30% focus and Clerical Spell haste.

In this perticular case - it doesn't work across the board because it leaves no room for expansion at the high end.

-Fenier

Fanra
12-08-2007, 09:42 PM
In this particular case - it doesn't work across the board because it leaves no room for expansion at the high end.
I'm not asking for an AA or whatever, in particular.

What I'm talking about (which is different than what some other people are) can be, what I call, the Stone Soup problem. I was afraid you were talking about that too, because EQ designers often do.

What is the Stone Soup problem?

Well, it has to do with an old folk tale. Let me explain it as I read it (although it has many variations):

A tramp comes across an old woman's house. He knocks on the door and asks for some food. She says (lying) that she has no food to give him, in fact, she has no food at all.

He then says, "Well, if you have no food, let me share what I have with you."
Being greedy, she is interested in a free meal and invites him in. He says, "I have this magic stone that will make us stone soup." He tells her to put a large pot filled with water on the fire. She does so and he puts in the pot the "magic" stone.

He stirs and stirs the water as she watches. "You know, ma'am, this will be a good soup, but it would be even better if we only had some potatoes...well, we don't and that is just too bad, for it would be really good if we only had some". She then mentions that she might be able to find some potatoes, if she looks around her house really hard. Not surprisingly, she finds some and they add them to the soup.

The tramp then mentions that if they only had a handful of flour, the soup would be fit for a king. She then "finds" some flour and they put it in the soup.

This goes on and on, with carrots, onions, meat, etc.

Finally, the soup is done and they eat it. It is the best soup she ever had and she tells him, "Wow, that was a great soup...and all from a stone".

He then takes his "magic" stone, washes it and puts it away.

------------------

What I get from EQ designers is that Druids and Druid spells work great, if you have the right equipment, the right buffs, the wind blowing in the right direction, you are outdoors, you have the right party members, you fight the right mobs, you have all AAs, etc.

And all from a Stone.

Yes, they do have to design the game so that if you do have all these things it is not too easy. But they forget that some of us only have a stone, or maybe just a stone and some flour, but not everything else.

Noken
12-09-2007, 02:36 AM
Why clerics got spell haste still blows my mind. They were prity much the one class that didn't make sense to get it.

Long ago and far away there was Lizardscale Woven Sash (http://lucy.allakhazam.com/item.html?id=52124) that was on the right track. Very few ever had it, but in the name of casters not being nerfed both in healing and damage without a cleric it'd be something I'd like to see brought back. It's comparable to overhaste; although bards have the 30% version there's still items out there that to fill in the gap.

Palarran
12-09-2007, 02:47 AM
I still use that when no cleric is around (rare since I normally 2-box a cleric, but it happens). 3.75% spell haste on Ancient Chlorobon is better than nothing.

Erianaiel
12-09-2007, 05:19 AM
You can't limit an AA to just group content. It's going to carry over into raid encounters so you have to account for things like 30% focus and Clerical Spell haste.

In this perticular case - it doesn't work across the board because it leaves no room for expansion at the high end.

-Fenier

I did not mean to limit the AA to group content, just saying that that is where it would be most useful (and the cleric buff would be less likely)

The lower numbers presented (three times 0.3 seconds cast time reduction) would give heals a 1 second cast time with 50pct spell haste, level 80, lower sustained DPS at single spells and an 18 AA point investment all for something that affects 5 or so spells. Since that is the proclaimed hard coded maximum there is no need to account for more expansion at the high end.
The advantage as I see it is Druids gaining a short duration ability to deal with multiple monsters in camp instead of having to decide which group member dies, which has been complained times and again is the greatest problem with Druid healing. One rank of the AA gives a similar effect to Cleric's spell haste 0.4 or 0.3 instead of 0.375 seconds cast time reduction and the cleric buff has the advantage of being across the board instead of limited to a few spells,

The numbers are chosen so that the Cleric spell is still applicable even after rank 3 of this AA would be activated (which is a lot better than happened to many of our own special abilities that got completely superceded by other classes instead of merely complemented by them). I.e. 3.75 second cast times 0.5 (for the theoretical maximum 50pct spell haste effect) minus 0.9 seconds gives a resulting cast time of 0.975 seconds, which is close enough to 1 second to make no difference. For the current situation (with the 1.2 seconds rank 3 effect) the numbers would be 3.75 times 0.6 minus 1.2 gives 1.05 seconds, again close enough to 1 second to make no difference. Mind that is after 40 or 50 pct spell haste from focii and cleric buff is taken into account. And never mind that when the developers decide to add another spell haste focus the cleric buff will become completely obsolete. I am sorry, but we are not here to help the Cleric class (though we should be polite and not argue for things that get them into trouble, but this is such a minor issue for the Cleric class that I do not understand why you are using this point.)


I did look up the applicable spells and got the following list, noting that the latest expansion gave us several heals that are below 2 seconds cast time, so it is not that the cast time alone would upset the developers, obviously.
Because of the increased recast, the AA would force Druids to heal with alternating their two highest ranking heals for the duration.


(55) Chloroblast: 1044pt healed
Chloroblast has a lower level than the lowest rank for the AA. It
would only take off 0.4 or 0.3 seconds of this spell, and it can only
be hastened by a limited amount before that.

(60) Nature's touch: 1491pt healed

(63) Nature's infusion: 2050pt healed

(65) Sylvan infusion: 2441pt healed

(68) Chlorotrope: 2810pt healed
(this one may for a while be used with rank 2 of the proposed AA, reducing
the cast time by an additional 0.8 or 0.6 seconds)

(70) Ancient Chlorobon: 3094 healed

(72) Pure life (rank 3): 3399pt healed (if you can get this spell, otherwise it is
3287 or 3176pt healed)

(77) Puravida (rank 3): 3943 pt healed (or 3779 and 3485pt for lower ranks)



I understand that you do not like the idea of this AA, but I would like to hear a clearer explanation why you think it will not work.

Questions I think need to be discussed to determine if this proposed AA is working and could be presented to the developers as a suggestion to improve Druid healing abilities.

1- Does the reported problem that Druids, at high end zones, are effectively unable to deal with more than one monster in camp actually exist? I keep seeing that complaint often, but I can not confirm or deny it since I am not playing at that level.

2- Does the proposed AA actually help alleviate the reported problem (i.e. does bringing the cast time of our staple heals down to approximately 1 or 1.5 seconds depending on buffs and focii allow Druids to heal more than one group member for a while?)

3- Are the restrictions placed on the AA such that it both remains useful and does not become overpowered in specific situations (1 minute duration, 10 minute recharge time. Adds up to 3 seconds to the recharge time. Applies only to heal spells with a 3.75 second cast duration. Gives either 0.4 or 0.3 seconds cast time reduction per rank, depending on how future proof we want to make this). Would more restrictions be reasonable, or less? Would another mechanism than an AA be better suited for the effect I am trying to achieve?

I guess I should also add
0- Do I understand correctly how spell haste works?



Eri

Fenier
12-09-2007, 02:14 PM
I understand that you do not like the idea of this AA, but I would like to hear a clearer explanation why you think it will not work.

I followed the Instant Nuke discussion very closely, and they where scaled back because of issues like rendering things such as spell haste totally un-needed. I feel the devs would be more apt to lower cast times directly, then give us a flat increase to all spells.

We inquired about upgrading Quick Damage in beta, but it didn't happen, likely for these reasons. I can ask Nodyin about it if it's something a lot of people are pushing for, but I would be shocked if he agreed since we're already pushing the spell haste cap as it is in both areas.

-Fenier

Erianaiel
12-10-2007, 04:23 AM
I followed the Instant Nuke discussion very closely, and they where scaled back because of issues like rendering things such as spell haste totally un-needed. I feel the devs would be more apt to lower cast times directly, then give us a flat increase to all spells.

That would kind of defeat the purpose though, since that would make those spell not eligible for spell haste (and would make spell haste completely useless instead of slightly less necessary).


We inquired about upgrading Quick Damage in beta, but it didn't happen, likely for these reasons. I can ask Nodyin about it if it's something a lot of people are pushing for, but I would be shocked if he agreed since we're already pushing the spell haste cap as it is in both areas.


I know, in fact this AA would be designed specifically to get past the spell haste cap for 7 or 8 spells, so I understand it may be a hard sell.

Still, the biggest question that needs to be answered first and that apparently nobody seems to want to discuss is if this change would actually have the intended effect, namely of allowing Druids to handle situations with more than one monster in camp more easily for a very limited duration.
If it does not then the whole point is moot. If it does, we can talk about how to present the suggestion is such a way that the developers see why we bring it up and why (we think) it will not upset the game balance (but helps them achieve their stated goal of healing parity between priest classes).

Given the overwhelming lack of discussion though, I think we might as well give up and just sit back and wait what the next expansion is going to bring in situational and occasionally useful tools that are hard to justify using a spell gem for because of that.


Eri

Elric91
01-04-2008, 05:44 AM
im curious fenier..what you meant by this statement :

The value was based off conversations I had with him with a debuff value of -297. Pretty sure I used Hand of Ro, Gelid Frost and Fixation for that number, been a few weeks tho.

That is what rivals slow, and that is what is the issue where it takes us 3-4 spells to do that.

i tested this out in dragonscale hills named, just me(78 druid) and a 75 ranger with 2500 ac and 500 aa's, i used HoR, Hoar frost rk 2, and fixation of ro, on several named and i noticed absolutely no difference whatsoever. the mobs were still hitting like mack trucks and pummled him around like a sack of wet potatoes. we then used earthcaller (ranger epic, proc 50% slow) and it was a HUGE difference.

we then grouped later in the atiki tounge twisting task..the one where you have a monstrosity that adapts its resistances to whatever is cast on him the most, (i joined the task at the end so noone had been using fire or ice). our tank was a pally with 1700 aa's and 3400 ac. the mob was basically poison and disease immune because we had a necro and shammy repeatedly casting poison and disease spells, so the shammy could not land a slow to save his life, and they had wiped twice.

so i said "hey..i wanna try somthing i read on the net" so i cast hoar frost rk 2, HoR, and fixation of ro on him, and BOY what a difference, i definately saw a solid reduction in damage.

not to derail, but my point is debuffing does not rival slow. slow guarentee's anyone in combat will be swung at X% less times, which is a whale of a different story than differing mobs, each with differing attack values, having that attack value lowered by a fixed amount.

if a mob hits 5k quad, we'll be glad it was slowed by 50% when the damage lands on the tank, thats 10k less damage. but if its debuffed by 300 att, ill bet my life savings his 5k attacks against the tank will not be dropped to 2500.

Khauruk
01-04-2008, 02:56 PM
A - did you parse actual dps taken by the ranger?

B - All currently/commonly used slows are based off of a magic check. High PR/DR would have no impact on a mob being slowed.

C - Earthcaller proc will be mitigated just like all other slows, so it was probably a 25%ish slow that was on the mob. And yeah...a ranger w/ 2500AC there tanking unslowed mobs will take mroe dps than you would want...esp. w/ just a druid for healing.

D - Nameds do often have higher attack. That could be a big different.

E - Your last paragraph does not match with the game mechanics. Slow has nothing to do with damage taken per round, it just spaces out the atk. rounds. So, that 5k/5k/5k/5k will happen just as often (or rarely) as before. Same chance of the tank getting one rounded, it just can't happen as often.

ATK debuffs though do make it less likely that the tank won't take a 5k/5k/5k/5k round from the mob. How much less dmg will count on the mob's AC, tank's AC, and RNG along with your debuffs.

I do think debuffs need a strong look-see by Prathun still...and I don't think they rival slow in most content that a group will do. But...they do rock imo.

palamin
01-04-2008, 04:30 PM
quote"B - All currently/commonly used slows are based off of a magic check. High PR/DR would have no impact on a mob being slowed."

Depends on the situtation. Some players would use their disease based slow first, due to the generally lower disease resistances on mobs, then, land their higher powered magic based slow, followed by/ or proceeded before malo, cripple, and junk.

palamin
01-04-2008, 05:00 PM
quote"im curious fenier..what you meant by this statement :


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenier
The value was based off conversations I had with him with a debuff value of -297. Pretty sure I used Hand of Ro, Gelid Frost and Fixation for that number, been a few weeks tho.

That is what rivals slow, and that is what is the issue where it takes us 3-4 spells to do that "

I can not speak for Fen, but, there was some discussion a few years ago about combining Hand of Ro, E'Ci Frosty Breath, and Ro's Immolation all in one Debuff for speedy convenience in group play, knocking off a few attack and leaving off the resist mod, and having a very good size of mana involved, but, less than if you cast all three of them. Unfortunately, I do not remember whether they wanted it on magic based, fire based or whatever.

Khauruk
01-04-2008, 08:24 PM
quote"B - All currently/commonly used slows are based off of a magic check. High PR/DR would have no impact on a mob being slowed."

Depends on the situtation. Some players would use their disease based slow first, due to the generally lower disease resistances on mobs, then, land their higher powered magic based slow, followed by/ or proceeded before malo, cripple, and junk.

For some occasional raid/named encounters, sure. But, disease slow is a mechanic that died in PoP afaik.

I have never seen a player, and dare say I never will see a player use their disease based slow (5 sec cast!) as a first slow in any but very rare situations.

Elric91
01-05-2008, 02:24 AM
<table class="tborder" id="post234092" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td id="td_post_234092" class="alt1">A - did you parse actual dps taken by the ranger?

B - All currently/commonly used slows are based off of a magic check. High PR/DR would have no impact on a mob being slowed.

C - Earthcaller proc will be mitigated just like all other slows, so it was probably a 25%ish slow that was on the mob. And yeah...a ranger w/ 2500AC there tanking unslowed mobs will take mroe dps than you would want...esp. w/ just a druid for healing.

D - Nameds do often have higher attack. That could be a big different.

E - Your last paragraph does not match with the game mechanics. Slow has nothing to do with damage taken per round, it just spaces out the atk. rounds. So, that 5k/5k/5k/5k will happen just as often (or rarely) as before. Same chance of the tank getting one rounded, it just can't happen as often.

ATK debuffs though do make it less likely that the tank won't take a 5k/5k/5k/5k round from the mob. How much less dmg will count on the mob's AC, tank's AC, and RNG along with your debuffs.

I do think debuffs need a strong look-see by Prathun still...and I don't think they rival slow in most content that a group will do. But...they do rock imo.
</td></tr></tbody></table>

i think the main point of my post was missed entirely and at least on some level was agreed to by khauruk:

I do think debuffs need a strong look-see by Prathun still...and I don't think they rival slow in most content that a group will do.
first off..if i need a parser to be able to tell if my debuffs are making a difference, then the debuffs definately will not rival slow.

i main heal all the time. maybe im not a genius when it comes to how the actual game data operates, or functions, but i can assure you when a mob is slowed, my mana pool can tell the difference big time. and when i debuff using the same content, and the same tank, it costs me alot higher mana in some of the areas, against some of the named.

i never said attack debuff wasnt useful. if you read my post :

so i said "hey..i wanna try somthing i read on the net" so i cast hoar frost rk 2, HoR, and fixation of ro on him, and BOY what a difference, i definately saw a solid reduction in damage.
i have already said so myself that debuffing rocks in certain places against certain mobs. my point of contention is that when fenier said debuffing RIVALS slow, and in my healing experiences, when different mobs with different attack values are debuffed by a fixed amount, somtimes it rocks, somtimes it dont, and certain times, like against a named, it is not even noticeable.

all that stuff i said about the shaman slow not landing was true. maybe i assumed it was disease based instead of magic based, but whichever based it is, it was not landing because others in the grp had been using similar based spells that had raised its resistances. noone had used fire or ice, so my ghetto slow replacement debuffs would have a chance of landing, which was my point.

so, ill keep my final statement clean and to the point so im not nit-picked on the details again. in my experience, attack debuffs may be useful, but against certain mobs and named the effects are not anywhere near as noticable as a shammy slow, and in my in game experiences, attack debuffs are not as useful as a slower.

and as a clarification, i wasn'nt trying to nitpick fenier's statement. the dev's said it would be too broken to give us a combined debuff because there was'nt really a way they could mitigate that down without un-balancing the game, which makes complete sense to me, and i was ok with that. then fenier said our debuffs rivals slow, and i was like "huh? they do?"

i'll go out on a limb, if a group was advertising for a slower, and i sent a tell saying "my debuffs are just as good" they would call me "ebay noob" and laugh me to death. i just dont think druids can replace slowers, and i felt like getting my opinion out there.



<table id="post234092" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td class="alt1" id="td_post_234092">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2">
</td> <td class="alt1" align="right">
(http://thedruidsgrove.org/eq/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=234092)</td></tr><tr><td style="vertical-align: top;">
</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

palamin
01-05-2008, 03:10 AM
quote"For some occasional raid/named encounters, sure. But, disease slow is a mechanic that died in PoP afaik.

I have never seen a player, and dare say I never will see a player use their disease based slow (5 sec cast!) as a first slow in any but very rare situations."

hehe, we used to rogue slow a few raid mobs back in the day, vox and naggy in particular.. not sure but, I think we managed to stick one on avatar of war like that as well.... good luck seeing that nowadays! It might be an interesting idea to try and see on the harder to resist mobs.

/derail off.

I would be curious about parses with all debuffs and cripple on mobs, I don't ever recall that one being done though, and then comparing data with slows separately.

Noken
01-05-2008, 04:36 AM
and as a clarification, i wasn'nt trying to nitpick fenier's statement. the dev's said it would be too broken to give us a combined debuff because there was'nt really a way they could mitigate that down without un-balancing the game, which makes complete sense to me, and i was ok with that. then fenier said our debuffs rivals slow, and i was like "huh? they do?"

I don't see how this is true, at all, despite what the devs say.

Attack debuffs shift the damage interval lower but do nothing to the damage base or % chance of being hit. There's very easy solutions if they don't want attack debuffs to have much value. One is to have high damage base, low damage interval. The second method is to have those at normal values but with a high attack rating so the debuffs do comparatively less. We see both methods in game already.

However, bottom line is regardless of their precise power at the moment our attack debuffs will always be raid powerful group weak for as long as it's spread across 3 required spells with long cast times, two resist checks for highest returns, and not insignificant mana costs. Those issues must be addressed.

It's also quite funny they're worried about giving us a single fast casting attack debuff that would return ~20% overall damage reduction because they want to conditionally make some mobs more immune to the effect? That premise is bias, comparable to making some mobs 20% more immune to all forums of melee but not casting or vice versa. The problem with slow was 70% was too powerful, but that's simply not the case with attack in any value or scenario.

Trevize
01-21-2008, 09:45 PM
Funny I started playing EQ in Nov of 1998. You'd think that in the 9 years that have passed they would have figured out druid balance. They've been trying to figure out the druid class since beta 1.

Woodelfous
01-22-2008, 04:22 AM
Druid mana regen vs shammie mana regen?

Khauruk
01-22-2008, 11:21 PM
Druids have higher passive mana regen than shaman do, shammies destroy us when they start to canni though.

Deneldar
02-06-2008, 11:31 AM
Funny I started playing EQ in Nov of 1998. You'd think that in the 9 years that have passed they would have figured out druid balance. They've been trying to figure out the druid class since beta 1.

I've just come back after almost 2 years but I think that's a little unfair. There's just too much crossover between classes, it's not something that will ever be complete without just having 5 classes. If we only had 1 tank, 1 healer, 1 mitigater, 1 crowd control and 1 DPS class it would be easy. But that would be a dull game.

I do see where Fanra is coming from with his soup though. I've always had that concern too. If everything is balanced with the perfect situation in mind we'll never feel balanced because the real situations we find ourselves in are rarely if ever perfect.

Alei
02-06-2008, 03:20 PM
Oops, wrong thread.

Trevize
03-02-2008, 10:37 AM
Here's an example that shows just how well druids are balanced vs one of our peers.

I often 2 box a 71 cleric and a 78 Druid.

In the span of 2 weeks my cleric gets invited and flagged for DSK

In the span of 2 months my druid still only has just "Lost Notebook".

I can't put it any more simply. This has been the issue since before Kunark was released. The devs didn't see it then and it's obvious they don't see it now.

Aderel
03-06-2008, 11:15 AM
Another similiar example would be the 'optimal raid setup' thread on Veterans board a few weeks ago. It seems most could agree on that 1 druid in a raid was enough, some suggested 2. So the community as a whole seems to agree that druids are underpowered, except when druids want a boost they go out of their way to explain how wonderful our 'utility' is. /boggle

shakobex
03-10-2008, 03:00 PM
I have found our debuffs to actually be fairly effective, but I agree with the fact that there's a big issue in having to cast 3 spells to achieve less effect than one slow spell. As it is it takes 3 spell slots, 3 spell casts, and in many situations by that time it's hardly worth it. If it were one spell and one cast I would find it a lot better.

This would not constitute class balance, because I believe our overall power level is too low by comparison with other classes, but it would be a positive change.

There should be a way to easily communicate our playing level here - for instance, I play a level 76 druid, 550AA, ac 1900 and 9500hp and 10500 mana unbuffed, I play 15 hours a week, I've played for 8 years, I mostly solo and occasionally group with mostly lower level chars in a casual guild, I have Scratched Hide gear with DoN and hotzone augs.

This information may be relevant for conversations like this.

One question I have about class balance is do they truly take into account the full effect of a fully powered pet with buffs, toys, focuses and such? Cause personally it seems to me that necros sure kick our behinds. They can beat us with just spells, never mind a fully powered pet.

Just curious.

fuinniuil
03-12-2008, 07:54 PM
I have a 80 druid with 450aa.

IMHO, we are underpowered for groups, and raids, and overpowered for soloing in many cases, and quite good in duo's.

There are many more classes than roles: healer, dps, tank, slower, cc...
So this means that the best tank, war, is needed in raids, but other tanks are not so much. And the specialized healer ( cleric ) is strongly favored over the more soloable/utility healer ( druid ). The only real fix to this problem, as I see it, is to have the same number of classes as roles. Can you really make the 2 top healer classes equally desirable in groups and raids? I dont think so. If we were as desired in groups and raids as clerics, or even close, it would be ridiculous, because we have so many other abilities ( snare, port, evac, DS, charm,... excellent soloers...).
If i wanted to be so desired in groups I would play a cleric. Oh wait, I do! My cleric is 67, and I never play her because clerics are kinda boring. Druids are tons of fun, and can do so much, I love em.

It is true, druids more than almost any other class have no clear role. This has always annoyed me until I play my other toons ( 80 rogue, 73 war, 67 cleric, 66 enchanter, 58 necro, 51 ranger, 45 shaman, 55 bard ) and realize that druids are just tons of fun, even if we are second rate main healers, and less versatile soloers. Most big changes to us would just rob another class that cant solo of their desirability in groups.

Anyway, just my opinion.

Aderel
03-12-2008, 09:50 PM
When was the last time you got a group because of snare, port, evac, DS, charm,... ?

Nobody gives a rats hide, and that's why druids are broken. When someone invites a druid to a group because they think we are powerful, and not because they tried for find a cleric for one hour and failed, there is some kind of balance.

Deneldar
03-25-2008, 04:36 AM
I've been back a couple of months now. Managed to get to 80 but I'm still short on AAs (600) and augments so my stats aren't exactly high end, approx 10khp/12kmana. I think I can probably offer an opinion now.

One word, mana.

I feel I've got the tools I need, or at least most of them but I can't use them fully because a) they're horribly inefficient and b) I just don't have that extra kick of mana regen that the other priests have.
A double whammy when it comes to healing, my most likely route into a group, because the healing efficiency is just horrible. There was a time you could compensate with good mana management but with this combat/resting thing that's gone out of the window. Groups are demanding, they want chain pulls before a rest and they certainly don't want to stop every 4 or 5 mobs while the druid healer meds.

I can get by healing in DSH but when all the other level 80, 600AA priests are healing and slowing in S.H.I.P, Steam Factory, Zeka and Beza I'm beginning to feel left out in my farm/mino groups. I'd either like to see a total revamp of our healing mana ratios or throw us an AA line. Something like 'gather nature's power' so that I can draw some mana from the atmosphere or something every few minutes.

If there are worries about how that would effect solo play, have it scale with group size. 0% of max for solo (ie. unuseable), 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 for groups of 2,3,4,5,6 respectively.

Kagonis
03-25-2008, 07:55 PM
Someone mentioned extending the resurrection timer on corpses would help druids in groups. I actually think this would be the single most efficient change that doesn't remove or add any "power" to/from any class.

I've been in some groups with a friends and my toons with me and a shaman. We had 2 corpses "rot" due to resurrection timer running out. It hurts. If I group I don't want to have to think about needing to rez within 1 hour (or however long the resurrection timer is). I like to find a really good XP group and then grind away for an entire day (6+ hours).

So.. Extend the resurrection timer to be 12 hours. It doesn't solve every balance issue and I honestly don't see anything gamebreaking in it.


Deneldar also had a great suggestion for something to help mana levels. Maybe make it a group thing that scales and can be used every 15-30 minutes, that returns 1000 Mana and 1000 Endurance (just a number, change to match as you see fit). This would make melee classes love druids because it means more disciplines.


Something I've been thinking about from World of Warcraft Druids, that might be usable in EverQuest, is their shapeshifting abilities, which gives them various upsides and downsides. Ofcourse there are all sorts of talents that have a great bearing on this too, but the basics are like this:

Treeform would force the druid into healermode. Heals are (much) more effective. The druid is unable to use offensive abilities while in treeform, just some buffs and heals.

Moonkin form (some sort of owlbear) would force the druid into nukermode. Nukes (and possible in our case DoT's) are (much) more effective. Ofcourse now we can't heal or buff.

Bearform = Tanking (think something like a paladin without heals).

Catform = DPS (think rogues here).

Now convert this to EverQuest...

Treeform we already have (although never upgraded or used). When druids are in treeform we can heal as good as a cleric or some other benefit such as increase mana regen that essentially makes us on level with clerics. Unable to do any damage at all (except from DS). Buffs should stay as they are now.

Wolfform another we already have. Just the opposite of treeform. Now we can't heal or buff, all we can is do DPS on level with mages, perhaps a little higher due to their pet and we have none.

Regular form as we know it now, no changes.



Now I'm curious if I can even read this post, probably have to log out to read it :p

Fanra
03-26-2008, 04:23 AM
The "forms" you are talking about were considered by SOE but they called them "stances".

First mentioned about two years ago, the status on them is unknown.

I'm against stances. I didn't pick a druid to be locked into a stance. Putting in stances is just an excuse for not fixing druids.

Trevize
04-02-2008, 09:56 AM
I turned on spell damage and spell damage crits last on our guild raid.

Watching a level 76 Mag do easily 4x my dps and I'm level 80 with 900aa and all the foci I can get.

That's hugely unbalanced.


Oh and tried to go to HoS with me as healer and no slower. That was a very not funny joke.

Erianaiel
04-05-2008, 05:15 AM
I turned on spell damage and spell damage crits last on our guild raid.

Watching a level 76 Mag do easily 4x my dps and I'm level 80 with 900aa and all the foci I can get.

That's hugely unbalanced.

The mage should have had better gear and or foci, since if all things are comparable Druids -should- be able to put out about half the DPS of Mages. Our direct damage is comparable but they do as much again DPS through their pets. The pet may have profited some from the melee buffs, if it was getting any of them of course, but not enough to triple its damage.
Still, a Mage doing twice the DPS of a Druid is completely unbalanced any way you look at it. That is less than a quarter of good Wizard DPS and less than a fifth of Rogue DPS. Not exactly something that encourages groups to invite Druids for DPS, not even for backup DPS.



Oh and tried to go to HoS with me as healer and no slower. That was a very not funny joke.

*sighs*
And as long as the 75pct power and 80pct efficiency rule stands it will not get any funnier. I did a quick calculation, based on numbers provided by others and my own shaky grasp of the math involved, but I came to the conclusion that Druids are short some 20000 points healed over an 18 second period compared to Clerics. Now Clerics can not keep that up very long, but Druids are already struggling at the lower level of performance.
The reason of this huge difference (Clerics can put out healing bursts almost three times as big as a Druid's best sustained effort, and Druids have only Survival of the Fittest to serve as a sort-of healing burst every other fight at best) is that Clerics have an efficient Heal over Time line of spells that Druids are missing and that can be chain cast (one for 4 ticks and one for 3 ticks).
This means that in any situation where a Cleric is challenged Druids do not even come remotely close to being able to cope.

The recent spate of linking spell timers destroyed any hope that that mechanism could be used to give Druids the abiltiy to trade efficiency for power (twisting fast casting and slowly recharging spells allows for bursts of healing or dps, at the cost of draining mana two or three times as fast, thus making the mana pool the limiting factor).
In the newest expansions Druids are supposed to be using their ATK debuffs to make up for the healing gap, but the fact that it needs up to 4 spells and at least 20 seconds to set up even under ideal conditions with no resists (which is exceedingly unlikly in any situation where those debuffs are essential), means that by the time we have fully debuffed the monster the tank already is back in the guild lobby looking for a rez. And this does nothing for older contents where, the developers admitted, the numbers are messed up in such a way that the ATK debuff does next to nothing.
The developers never even -asked- the Druids if they want to be main healer at limited capability. Or rather, they did realise that Druids are not too keen about replacing Clerics. Thus the whole stances debacle.

That said, the game has been set up, gradulally, that anything worthwhile doing needs vast quantities of healers, and at the same time it has been made that playing said healers is not all that entertaining. Thus the pressing need for the creeping Clericification of the Druid class (and soon the Shamen will be starting to feel the same pressure too). Because the -only- healing model in the game is that of Clerics Druids are being gradually remade in that template, but to avoid making the Cleric class even more unhappy, no other class can be made to be perceived more (or even equally) powerful as the primary healer class. Unless the numbers and spells match exactly there will be this balancing problem where increased ability at some task must be matched with decreased ability somewhere else (i.e. in the healing spells). This leaves Druids as a crippled healing class, the more so because there is a significant discrepancy between the theoretical formula used for balancing and the practice of playing the game.


Eri

Sorrian
04-18-2008, 02:40 AM
Double post..sorry

Sorrian
04-18-2008, 02:40 AM
I have nearly 1500 aa's and that includes all healing, nuking, and dot aa's. With straight nukes (using AtA on events such as Valik where dps is more important than my healing) and a 70% magic focus I break 1k dps (highest so far is 1257 dps on Valik iirc) with getting the lucky 32k hit once or twice. Keep in mind I am using storm strike 3 everytime it refreshes along with my 2.0 and clicky glitterfrost. To me, that is dismal output. Working every angle I have and a ranger plucking a bow can nearly dps as well as druid going all out. (I say this because my dps on encounters where I can't use AtA is limited even further and the small gap narrows even further.) The only time a druid shines is solo and in no other way is he or she effective.

As for healing...We really got the shaft after the patch on the 17th. I was able to crit heal anywhere between 10-14k before. Today I haven't seen one over 9.8k. Even though my regular heals are 5-6k my crits will not break 10k. I don't know if this was a mistake or done on purpose. I can say that it seems to be affecting clerics as well so we are not alone in our misery. Just try to heal in Crystallos now =(

Fanra
04-18-2008, 03:33 AM
As for healing...We really got the shaft after the patch on the 17th. I was able to crit heal anywhere between 10-14k before. Today I haven't seen one over 9.8k. Even though my regular heals are 5-6k my crits will not break 10k. I don't know if this was a mistake or done on purpose. I can say that it seems to be affecting clerics as well so we are not alone in our misery. Just try to heal in Crystallos now =(
While I agree that druids seem to always get the shaft, this is a bug. They will (sooner or later) fix this.

Of course, since it is affecting all healers, not just druids, you can bet they will work on it ASAP. :)

Sorrian
04-18-2008, 03:49 AM
I hope you're right. This was a real pain in the last raid when I was having to heal about 30% more often. I swear I could hear my mana bar screaming in agony....maybe that was just the group crying about dying /shrug. :wiggle:

Fanra
04-18-2008, 08:17 AM
I hope you're right. This was a real pain in the last raid when I was having to heal about 30% more often. I swear I could hear my mana bar screaming in agony....maybe that was just the group crying about dying /shrug. :wiggle:
We're looking into the healing oddities. Best guess right now is that only one-half of a backend mechanics change ended up in the patch, which would explain why its fine on test but messed up on live. Should be pretty easy to verify if that's the case and then we'll figure out how to correct it ASAP.

Going to check into the message too. Heals should be reporting actual, not total, healing. Just more useful that way.

Rashere

Note the servers went down for a patch of the patch. This might have been fixed already.

Sorrian
04-18-2008, 02:39 PM
Just logged in to see and it is NOT fixed. I cast adrenaline swell and puravida rk.II several times and got regular heals of 5.2-6.3k and all exceptional heals were in the mid 9k range. :mad:

I suppose they will get around to fixing it when it suits them.

Wildeagle
04-22-2008, 07:07 AM
ok so do we have some on lookign in to getting are heals fixed this is sad when i best heal use to crit for 13-15k and now i am lucky to see 11k abd my adv is 4-5ks thsi just not cuttign it man.

and did they chage are nukes loosk like i am hitign mute crits then i use to witch is not bad. just give my heals back PLZ.

Erianaiel
04-22-2008, 02:08 PM
ok so do we have some on lookign in to getting are heals fixed this is sad when i best heal use to crit for 13-15k and now i am lucky to see 11k abd my adv is 4-5ks thsi just not cuttign it man.

and did they chage are nukes loosk like i am hitign mute crits then i use to witch is not bad. just give my heals back PLZ.

Wildeagle, would it hurt you to try to use a spell checker and punctuations in your posts? I tried to make sense of what you were saying here but in the end I just gave it up. My best guess is that you are complaining about healing too little and nuking too much, but it really is a jumbled mess of phonetically spelled, transposed characters and abbreviations that make it extremely difficult to follow your posts.


Eri

Wildeagle
04-22-2008, 05:14 PM
nope not going to look in to it sorry it would not help me any my spelling sucks so even if the propper spelign of a word was in front of me i would not know that its the propper spelling of it as for the rest i am sorry your so book smart ya cant read past any messup.

if your not looking in to the problems get off it ERi so i cant spell and you cant read i for give ya .

any oen that can read will be abel to look past spellign ares and theat othe stuff ane make sence of it

Rajolae
04-22-2008, 06:44 PM
nope not going to look in to it sorry it would not help me any my spelling sucks so even if the propper spelign of a word was in front of me i would not know that its the propper spelling of it as for the rest i am sorry your so book smart ya cant read past any messup.

if your not looking in to the problems get off it ERi so i cant spell and you cant read i for give ya .

any oen that can read will be abel to look past spellign ares and theat othe stuff ane make sence of it

Yeah, I just got dumber because I tried to read that.

Tilluen
04-29-2008, 01:47 PM
Wildeagle, would it hurt you to try to use a spell checker and punctuations in your posts?

I just quit reading his posts. It's just not worth the trouble.