I believe there have already been a couple threads that clearly displayed mathematically why it was ludicrous to nerf the PoP zone experience modifier in order to accomplish better exp for groups. Group exp could have become JUST as good without nerfing any modifiers.

That being said I think that it is unfair that EQ be allowed to pitch the game as one that can both be played Solo and with others (If you doubt this go to Best Buy and read the back of the box), and THEN <em>SENSELESSLY</em> nerf the soloers. Since this IS the case - I'm asking for some simple compensation.

Here is my request:

Since the solo experience still seems to be the best killing frogs in the Plane of Storms - I propose that everything non-giant related in that zone becomes root/snareable, unable to summon, charmable and equivalent in exp to the Forest Frogs. This will open up about 30 more solo spots in the game and throw the soloers a completely harmless bone.

There is absolutely nothing unbalancing about this and it would even serve to spread a lot of the game population into a ghost town of a zone.

Even a clueless twit could solo there. Absolutely zero risk to soloing with those things coded into the mobs.

But hey, go for it. Crazier things have happened.


Belkram

Since the frogs are already coded <em>exactly</em> like that - I see no harm in expanding it to the other creatures in the zone that <em>no one</em> currently kills.

You seem a bit harsh Belkram,

Soloing something that can not be snare/rooted and that summons is the last thing I would call "Zero risk."

If you can solo these without risk, perhaps you should share your wisdom.

The request was to make "all non-giant" mobs unable to summon. That would trivialize things a bit for frog hunters.

BUT, what they could do is make it so ALL mobs assist as yard trash mobs do AND make it so yard trash doesn't summon. Increase the "wandering" factor to some of the mobs and potential spawn points to level the risk factor out.

They do NOT need to increase the charmable mobs, there are plenty of those already. FYI, more then frogs can be charmed by druids. They are just the "best" pet there right now.

In effect it would be like PoNightmare charming but kicked up a notch.

I think it is a BIG waste of a zone to see 100s of mobs up, that could be killed but aren't because the exp sucks and/or they summon.

Why do you next to never see folks camping yard trash in PoS? The exp sucks and since half of them summon no charmers want to risk it.

Belkram's always a bit harsh, he's a cleric. :mad:

Stop complaining about soloing nerfs. You still make a comparable amount of exp when compared to grouping.

Want more mobs that can be rooted and snared then solo in places like ME.

I would like to see them mark more animals as animals so we can have more mobs for pets but hey I will live with what I can get.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
I believe there have already been a couple threads that clearly displayed mathematically why it was ludicrous to nerf the PoP zone experience modifier in order to accomplish better exp for groups
[/quote]

well then you believe wrongly, unless you have a different definition of mathematics than the rest of us.

Soru

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Since the solo experience still seems to be the best killing frogs in the Plane of Storms - I propose that everything non-giant related in that zone becomes root/snareable, unable to summon, charmable and equivalent in exp to the Forest Frogs. This will open up about 30 more solo spots in the game and throw the soloers a completely harmless bone.[/quote]

Teia, you're entitled to make this proposal or any other request to Sony. That's absolutely your right as a paying customer. But let me tell you why, in my opinion, the proposal is not viable:

1. Would create a bottleneck by cramming soloers into one zone. Don't forget there are more classes than just druids (e.g. rangers, necros, magicians, enchanters, beastlords, bards) who would want to take advantage of this proposed 'sweet spot' for soloing exp.

2. If mobs are made easier for soloers by removing their snare/root immunities and ability to summon, they become 6x easier for exp groups. And we know that exp grind groups will always gravitate towards places which offer the most reward for the least risk. Make this proposed change and you'll be back in a week complaining that "30" spots isn't enough.

3. Sony is already aware that soloers have taken a hard hit in PoP zones. This was not an unexpected side effect to the exp nerf; they actually came right out and stated it was going to have this effect, and they implied that any soloing nerf can be justified by simply claiming, "after all, this is a multiplayer grouping game."

4. People have been complaining ever since PoP was released that they don't want to be limited to 4 or 5 zones for decent exp. There's no reason to expect soloers will be very happy about being indefinitely limited to 1 zone for decent solo exp.

Do I agree with you that the nerf to PoP exp was unreasonable and that it unfairly penalized a segment of the playing population? Yes! But I also have to accept that these changes benefitted a larger, more desirable ('pro grouping') segment of the population, and Sony obviously does not mind casualties in its mission to promote grouping.

I guess Sony doesn't see the irony in rewarding solitary activities like tradeskills, while penalizing those who seek other forms of progression without relying upon five other players at a time. But that's the hand we've been dealt.

It would seem wise for us to acknowledge Sony's new apparent belief that soloing is somehow bad for the game, and redouble our efforts in lobbying for changes which make 'solo-oriented' classes like the druid more effective and desirable in group settings.

~Firemynd

I don't prefer to solo, so the nerfs to this ability don't affect me very much. However, I prefer not to see my friends hurt by such actions, and their enjoyment lessened for reasons that seem not very well thought out.

I really do find it much more enjoyable to group, and I think that the changes in exp were long overdue. Maybe there needed to be a nerf to soloing exp in PoP and there is something I don't quite get. Like many other changes in the game, its too soon to tell what the long term impact will be on our class. Sometimes its greater than expected, sometimes less. It does make me worry about the stackability and desireability of druids for groups. These issues have been discussed to death. Now we wait and see, I suppose, what the actual effects will be and whether or not SOE will perceive them and whether or not there will be changes.

There really isn't anything new to say or do at this point.

Kaledan:

((Base Mob Exp) X (ZEM +1) x (Group Bonus +1))/ Group Members (max 5)

Scenario #1 (as it stands)
No ZEM
6 Player group gets 80% bonus

Soloer gets Base Mob Exp
1 person of a 6 person groups gets 0.36(Base Mob exp)

Scenario #2 (as it should have been)
20% ZEM
6 Player group gets 50% Bonus

Soloer gets 1.2(Base Mob Exp)
1 person of a 6 person groups gets 0.36(Base Mob exp)


Firemynd:

1) Making more mobs soloable is never going to hurt soloers. I don't see the logic here.

2) More spots for groups to go? This is in no way a negative anscillary effect to the game in general. There are so many roaming mobs in the Plane of Storms that this will not effect soloers - there are no "camps" per se if you are not killing Giants.

3) I agree ;) I could counter by saying - what about the guy that picks up the box in Best Buy knowing nothing previously about EQ and reads that soloing is part of the gameplay, he then plays and

4) This would only increase the amount of zones for soloers. If anything its expanding limits - NOT contracting them.

Everything else) Yeh, there are probably better things to worry about, but this is simple and quick and would make a lot of previously grumpy people very happy.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>1) Making more mobs soloable is never going to hurt soloers. I don't see the logic here.[/quote]

It isn't a point of making mobs more soloable; the point is that it makes them easier, which means even safer and faster exp for groups.

Sony gave those mobs the ability to summon so they would be more challenging (for lack of more imaginative ways, a complaint which is described very nicely by Stormfront in this <a href="http://pub149.ezboard.com/fthedruidsgrovegeneral.showMessage?topicID=31348.t opic" target="top">thread</a>). As a result, though, most groups choose other places to exp grind because they prefer to have the least risk for the greatest (exp) reward possible. It's the reason more people hunt for exp in PoV than in PoS, and why they usually only hunt PoS for BoT/Tactics flagging pieces.

If you really can't see how making mobs easier will attract groups to compete with soloers for pulls, you're not thinking about it enough. ;)

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>4) This would only increase the amount of zones for soloers. If anything its expanding limits - NOT contracting them.[/quote]

Thanks to the expansion of range for dark blue mobs, soloers already have a <span style="text-decoration:underline">ton</span> of zones to hunt. The problem is, those zones do not compare with ZEMs of PoP, so the fact that people 'can' solo in more places doesn't negate the fact that they 'choose' to solo where the exp is best.

Why not just argue for ZEMs of all high level non-PoP zones to be increased, so that soloers aren't limited to the "nerfed but better than nothing" exp of PoP?

~Firemynd

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Why not just argue for ZEMs of all high level non-PoP zones to be increased, so that soloers aren't limited to the "nerfed but better than nothing" exp of PoP?[/quote]

If you are suggesting putting a 20% ZEM on everything and cutting the group bonus down to a max of 50% for 5 and 6 man groups - Yeh - that'd be nice. I don't believe this is a remote possibility though. I do however think taking the god traits off of some of the PoS mobs is doable.

Increasing the amount of zones to experience in was never my intention. As you explained soloers will gravitate to the best exp - if its all in one zone - thats fine. If someone tires of the same zone they can always make the choice of going someplace else. Besides by default of what you are saying - soloers would all gravitate to a single zone now as it is. What difference does changing it to a different zone make?

I understand that groups will also gravitate to these spots. To that I'm saying - who cares? In fact its just another anscillary <em>benefit</em> of this change. Every bear and snake, Cacti, and Ent in the zone is currently a waste of pixels. Why not make them desirable targets? There are enough wandering mobs that any soloer can travel the zone and get their fill regardless of how many groups are there.

Since more people are able to access Pov/PoS now I think making more mobs desirable targets would only make the game better for all.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You seem a bit harsh Belkram,

Soloing something that can not be snare/rooted and that summons is the last thing I would call "Zero risk."

If you can solo these without risk, perhaps you should share your wisdom.[/quote]Just being the devil's advocate here, but if you re-read Belkram's post, he clearly stated that it was *IF* the things mentioned in the initial post were added. Not that he could already do them.

Would be a great idea to remove grouping bonuses in high level non-pop zones and add a solo bonus. All the completely deserted zones might actually get some use then. ME and The Grey are 2 good examples of zones that would be great for soloers if the exp rewards were even close to PoP and are no longer used by groups.

They Didn't nerf your ability to solo, they simply reduced the amount of Exp. you get, there is a difference. Because you are getting less exp. that does not suggest that you are unable to solo.

Oops,

Yeah you are right... Sorry Belkram,

My only defense is I had not had my coffee yet.

I think that the summoning immune to run speed crapola should be removed from all non giant yard trash in PoS. As it stands that zone is empty for the most part ,there are dozens of under-utilized zones, taking off those stupid "enhancements" would increase use of the zone.

How is that any different than say .. tactics? those mobs don't summon. I can solo them.. so what's the difference? Yes druids will be able to solo better there .. why not? there is a lot of room. other classes will be able to solo there better too.

People need to have stuff to do! be it solo or whatever or why the hell would they keep paying to play? (besides the addiction ..inttermittent reinforcement.. much like gambling .. nice model soe, Its worked great so far ;P ) I already /feedback a request to remove those abilities from those mobs everytime I wander thru the zone.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
Scenario #2 (as it should have been)
[/quote]

Those changes would still leave PoP zones as massively better exp than anything else, instead of only moderately better.

I suspect the number of people who like to sometimes group, raid or solo outside PoP is greater than the number of people who

a: solo within PoP
b: are anal enough about exp to notice a 15 to 30% drop in exp rate in some zones.
c: don't two-box

Of course, they could have just 'printed more exp' so that everyone always got more under all circumstances - double exp for grouping, double exp for non-PoP, double exp for high blue mobs. 15 minutes aaxps all round. If you think that would have self-evidently been a good thing, /shrug.

Soru

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Of course, they could have just 'printed more exp' so that everyone always got more under all circumstances - double exp for grouping, double exp for non-PoP, double exp for high blue mobs. 15 minutes aaxps all round. If you think that would have self-evidently been a good thing, /shrug.[/quote]
No sir - YOU said that not me. If I ever want words crammed down my throat I'll ask politely.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
No sir - YOU said that not me. If I ever want words crammed down my throat I'll ask politely.
[/quote]

Fair enough, you don't want that, I assume you don't want PoP to be the only possible place to get exp, so do you accept you were wrong?

Sorry to be so blunt about this, but I have a pet bugbear about math being used to propagate wrong ideas. Way too many people just glaze over and beleive any nonsense that gets posted with a formula in the middle.

Soru

actually this proposal really doesnt have alot to do with soloing.

It is more about making a rather crappy zone more useful all around....The giants are not good exp really and the regular yard trash is relative to pov yard trash yet it is VERY social and more then half of it summons which makes it not a very viable experience spot for soloers or groups.

Change it so nothing summons but giants and everythign is social within species ie tree's to trees bears to bears snakes to snakes not you agro a snake and every bear and tree comes after your ass.

Change those things and you mite actually see more people in the zone not just soloers.

Kaledan - Its a widely known fact that I am out to destroy not only non-PoP but every zone except the Plane of Storms by proposing they make some of the yard trash easier in that zone. Thank you for your astuteness. I thought I may have been able to slide this by - but you caught me. Well Done.

In other news - I think you are correct Baurhm. This has evolved into an idea not about soloing - but about general zone improvement for PoS.

A while back they gave PoS a higher ZEM to account for the harder mobs there. How about asking for it to be put back as it was dropped to the same as all other POP zones recently as part of the exp changes.

Norathian Dictionary of Knowledge

Nerf : Any patch, threw which any changes are made that makes any class or any group of class's less viable in any manner.


Anyone that thinks the exp changes made recently are not a nerf to soloers is wrong. They took what soloers could do and made it less "profitable". Good for the game or not, it gives less reward for the same effort. NERF

One thing I disagree with the corporation about here:

Never, never evva evva take EXP out of this game.
NEVER.

Add even more to group and more to solo if you ask me. Its a joke to think how long it takes to get an AAexp charecter. Screw PL and all that. I am talking about how long it takes for a tool like me.

Teia - don't mind Kaledan, he is just grumpy most of the time.

Why do we solo:

1) Out of a 6 hour play night it take 4 or more hours to find a group. Why subject yourself to that if you have the oppertunity to solo.
2) It is royal and complete pain in the a$$ to start a group from scratch. By the time you've found the right people, half have already left to other groups.
3) Because we are simply not the ESSENTIALS for a group.

I think most druids would like to group if it was actually easy to find a group, well, easy to find groups, hard to get an invite. The question is how to make it easier to get into a group. Assuming you're talking pop (ya they made old world non green, but you really think your going to get xp compared to pop), then mandatory classes in a group are
1- Monk/Ranger to pull
2- Warr/Pal to tank
3- Cleric to heal/tranq/rez
4- Wiz for max DPS
5- Enchanter/Shaman for buffs/slows/backup heal
6- 1 spot left, gee only 7 other classes to choose from for this last slot.

SCREW 6 person groups! Make the max group size 10 or 12. You really dont REQUIRE more then one of the essential classes in a group, so make more slots. To many classes are left in the cold simply because there are so many of them with so few non essential slots.

Just because you open up more mobs to solo in PoS doesn't mean it would get crowded Firemynd. The only way that would happen would be if you were to subsequently shut down a lot of the other soloing places in PoP. People would still use HoH and Tactics to solo even if you provide a wider range of mobs to kill in PoS, if for no other reason than a chance at the specs that drop in HoH and Tactics.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
Its a widely known fact that I am out to destroy not only non-PoP but every zone except the Plane of Storms by proposing they make some of the yard trash easier in that zone.
[/quote]

I am not talking about your proposal, but about your justification for it. It was not 'ludicrously stupid' to reduce the PoP ZEMs, in fact it is pretty plausible that it was the least bad way of making a necessary change.

Rephrase your idea bit and you might even get some support outside the bitter druids club.

Soru

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>b: are anal enough about exp to notice a 15 to 30% drop in exp rate in some zones.[/quote]

People don't have to be anal to notice it; many custom UIs show exact percentage numbers. Also keep in mind that soloers see the 'face value' of every mob without any bonuses or dividers, so any change in a zone's exp values are more noticeable to them.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Of course, they could have just 'printed more exp' so that everyone always got more under all circumstances - double exp for grouping, double exp for non-PoP, double exp for high blue mobs. 15 minutes aaxps all round. If you think that would have self-evidently been a good thing[/quote]

Your inferrence to currency implies that there is a fixed amount of exp in the game's virtual treasury, and that whatever SOE wants to give groups must be taken from somewhere else, in this case from soloers. That's silly. This isn't a zero sum game, and they've never been forced to penalize one segment in order to reward another.

Sony could have assigned +10% for a "group of one" to help offset the overall reduction in PoP exp, as easily as they added 20% for a "group of two" and 40% for a "group of three" etc..

But obviously Sony's intent was to motivate soloers by penalizing them when they 'fail' to join groups.

It would be like basing gym class grades on basketball pick-up groups, telling the kid who gets picked last that the highest grade he can earn is a 'B'.

SOE would rationalize this by saying, "Well, if the kid has built a network of friends, they will invite him to groups in spite of how poorly they pereive his athletic abilities."

Soru would rationalize this by saying, "Well, we have a limited number of A's to award, so some folks will have to take B's in spite of spending the same amount of time and effort. And hey, the B is only 15% lower ... students would have to be anal to notice the difference."

~Firemynd

How many times are we going to go around and around on the so-called "nerf to soloing?" It wasn't a nerf to soloing, it was a nerf to PoP zone xp modifiers. This so-called "nerf to soloing" has not affected my ability to solo one bit, nor has it affected the experience I gain from soloing since I have yet to attempt to solo in PoP zones.

What this has done is make it more palatable for me to join groups or add people to a group I inevitably end up building, simply because the loss of experience per unit time isn't very bad and actually could work out to be better experience!

Nerfs to soloing are: summoning mobs, mobs immune to runspeed changes, mobs taking 1/2 damage from dots while moving and not in "flee" mode, and so on.

Call it a nerf if you must, but lets not be dishonest or disingenuous about it.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Call it a nerf if you must, but lets not be dishonest or disingenuous about it. [/quote]

The reduction in PoP zone exp modifiers was indeed a nerf to all soloers who are too high level to gain exp at a comparable rate to folks of the same level who can easily get groups in PoP zones.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>This so-called "nerf to soloing" has not affected my ability to solo one bit, nor has it affected the experience I gain from soloing since I have yet to attempt to solo in PoP zones.[/quote]

Just because you aren't personally affected by a nerf doesn't detract from the impact that nerf has on other players. If YOUR exp was reduced by 1/3rd in the zones which provided the best exp for those of YOUR level and playstyle, you would most certainly call it a nerf and be justified in saying so. Nothing dishonest or disingenious about it.

~Firemynd

The problem is the word "nerf" is overused to the point of meaninglessness. People point to the closing of the group-buff exploit as the "KEI nerf". The inability of charm-classes to make xp considerably faster, even considering the odd death, as compared to groups was a serious game imbalance that needed correcting.

Reducing the PoP ZEMs was not a soloing nerf. It was an experience nerf that applied to all players. Summoning mobs are a soloing nerf. Mobs immune to runspeed changes are a soloing nerf. Moving mobs taking 1/2 damage from dots was a soloing nerf. Reducing xp is not a nerf because it does not affect the *ability* to solo, merely the reward of it.

Reducing the PoP ZEMs needed to happen, and badly. The xp flowed to easy, too fast. People, especially soloists, were accumulating AA by the scores. Getting hundreds of AA in mere months is ridiculously fast. It needed to get turned down. Even with the group xp bonus, soloing is still better xp per unit time, assuming you pick your soloing grounds and technique well. Soloers still get better xp, just by somewhat less of a margin than before.

[edit: apparently r.e.f.e.r. is a swear word now...either I am misspelling it, or the filter thinks I'm talking about an illegal substance to smoke.]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
Your inferrence to currency implies that there is a fixed amount of exp in the game's virtual treasury, and that whatever SOE wants to give groups must be taken from somewhere else, in this case from soloers.
[/quote]

It implies nothing of the sort. Do you think for every dollar the US treasury prints, they have to confiscate and shred one that's in circulation?

Soru

Soru:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It implies nothing of the sort. Do you think for every dollar the US treasury prints, they have to confiscate and shred one that's in circulation?[/quote]

That is exactly what you seemed to be stating with your sarcastic assumption that anyone who felt nerfed by the solo exp reduction would agree with 'printing more exp' ... think about your analogies before you make them.

Zarros:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Reducing the PoP ZEMs was not a soloing nerf. It was an experience nerf that applied to all players. [/quote]

Absolutely not. The reduction to PoP ZEMs was accompanied by a huge increase in grouping bonuses, which not only offsetted the lower ZEM but meant that groupers would be rewarded with more exp than they received prior to the change.

Saying that PoP's ZEM reduction somehow affected exp for "all players" is to blindly ignore the fact that those who group exclusively <span style="text-decoration:underline">will</span> get <span style="text-decoration:underline">more</span> exp now than before. Given Sony's statement in the patch message about these changes which clearly acknowledged that soloers would get less exp in PoP, I don't see how or why you would try to argue the opposite.

~Firemynd

thank you firemynd

Firemynd, you are ignoring the fact that soloing is *still* better xp per unit time than group is, even after the xp nerf and grouping bonuses were put in. Its not better by as much as it was, but it is still better nonetheless. Before it was totally out of whack, now its merely "damn good!"

I don't see a problem.

You haven't had any of your solo ability taken away. Druids are just as capable of soloing today as they were before this so-called nerf. No more mobs summon, no more mobs are runspeed change immune, no more mobs have been flagged as uncharmable, etc. None of your *ability* has been diminished, merely the overly ridiculous xp that could be gotten has been toned down a tad, and considering how much less risk PoP soloing is for the xp compared to where in non-PoP zones you could make evern remotely comparable xp, it was badly overdue.

<strong>The problem is the word "nerf" is overused to the point of meaninglessness. People point to the closing of the group-buff exploit as the "KEI nerf".</strong>

When something has been in the game for 3 years...its not and exploit, its a feature.

That was a nerf...not closing of an exploit.

Jesus you VAKs really get to me sometimes.

<strong>Reducing the PoP ZEMs needed to happen, and badly. The xp flowed to easy, too fast. People, especially soloists, were accumulating AA by the scores. Getting hundreds of AA in mere months is ridiculously fast. It needed to get turned down. Even with the group xp bonus, soloing is still better xp per unit time, assuming you pick your soloing grounds and technique well. Soloers still get better xp, just by somewhat less of a margin than before.</strong>

And how many AA's did you rack up before the xp nerf that you so proudly hail? Did you limit your xping to non PoP zones because you thought the PoP ZEMs were too much and it was just too damned easy?

@#%$, you VAKs really really piss me off.



<strong>edit: apparently r.e.f.e.r. is a swear word now...either I am misspelling it, or the filter thinks I'm talking about an illegal substance to smoke.] </strong>

That word was banned because it was being used mostly in solicited URLs, like o_u_t_w_a_r.

Most people play the game to have fun and will avoid people who seem to not be having fun while playing. Nobody likes to listen to somebody complain for hours on end. Reminds me of highschool dances. Often there would be 2 friends sitting side by side but one would smile at any guy that approached and the other didn't look so friendly. It didn't matter what they looked like for the most part the one who smilled was asked to dance 100x more often.

Lots of druids these days aren't any fun to group with. They seem a bunch of manic depressive people allways pointing out thier own faults and weaknesses. After an awesome fight where the group barely lives and everybody else is pumped and enjoying it they usually quip something like "well if you had a cleric instead that would not have even been close" or "if the morons at VI would lower the mana cost of my heal I woulnd't have run out of mana and that would have been easy." After sucking the enjoyment some are having in any given situation is it no wonder people don't group with them anymore?

Hmm, all the female Valo druids leave or stop cybering Avash, leaving you with druids who don't get special favors and have to scrabble for groups every day?

It leaves em bitter you know. If you want em happy, group with em more. Show em you appreciate them.

Or maybe you guys don't appreciate em anymore now that they aren't needed for ports?

Zarros i just wanted to let you know that NO soloing is not nearly as effective as grouping. Pit Tactics group I gain ALOT more xp per hour then I do soloing frogs and frogs were the BEST soloing xp for a druid that ever has existed to my knowledge.

This WAS a nerf to soloing any way you want to try to frame it.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You haven't had any of your solo ability taken away[/quote]

I didn't say I had any of my solo ability taken away.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>~even after the xp nerf and grouping bonuses were put in[/quote]

"xp nerf" .. there, you said it, finally.

You can't walk into someone's house, take a painting off their wall, then tell them, "You STILL have more paintings than the average household, so taking one away isn't really stealing."

Reduce exp = taking something away = nerf

Thinking the nerf was justified is your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that Sony reduced exp in PoP zones and provided groupers an automatic workaround to avoid the effects of that reduction -- leaving only soloers negatively impacted. Hence, a nerf to solo exp in PoP.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>No more mobs summon, no more mobs are runspeed change immune, no more mobs have been flagged as uncharmable, etc. [/quote]

We heard you the first time but you missed the point.

Believe it or not, any solo-capable class IS able to solo summoning mobs, root/snare immune mobs, uncharmable mobs, etc. I've done it hundreds of times playing my druid, and while these mobs are more tedious and usually require less efficient methods, soloing them is certainly not impossible.

Please stop trying to claim that the reduction in PoP exp wasn't a soloing nerf just because it doesn't remove or hinder our class abilities. The change made <span style="text-decoration:underline">does</span> decrease the reward for using our class abilities, and that has the same sort of negative impact as making mobs more difficult to solo by giving them summoning or snare immunity.

~Firemynd

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You haven't had any of your solo ability taken away. Druids are just as capable of soloing today as they were before this so-called nerf.[/quote]

What you fail to understand here, is efficiency is the key to soloing. Every class can solo a single mob, for exp up to, and around lvl 50, but very few classes bother too, do to the lack of efficiency. What makes it a viable option, for some classes, is efficiency, plain and simple. When you effect the efficiency, you are affecting ones viability to solo. Any way you slice it they nerfed soloing.

My cleric had 36 AA on him, 42 after the PoP flags-for-AA turnin. Obviously all of it grouped. My beastlord is just *now* level 46 and technically capable of going to the planes although it will be a bit before I even attempt it. I've never had solo PoP experience with either of my mains, current or retired.

As for the KEI thing... a bug is a bug is a bug and an exploit is an exploit is an exploit. The fact that it took SOE several years to have the time/motivation to change it doesn't change the substance of *it was a bug and people were exploiting it.*

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I see a player-wide PoP-xp-nerf and a nice set of new grouping bonuses. I see solo xp is *still* better in the prime material so I have every confidence its still better in PoP as well. I do not feel that my beastlord requires "compensation as a soloists" even though thats how I spend half my xp time. I do not agree that efficiency is a key element of soloing, except that amount of downtime and the xp reward involved will affect where I decide to solo, not my ability to do so.

Not only was the nerf warranted but it should have happened the week POP came out with the upgraded bonus for groups.

It shouldn't have lasted nowhere near so long.

Remember the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. I am actually long past where you are to being indifferent to the majority of EQ's failings and just enjoy the parts I can. It's just a game and not worth all this emotional angst you seem to be pooring out.

When I am playing, I am playing. Much of the time it is fun. Some of the time it is not. I play a lot. This means I notice things about the game. I especially notice things about how druids work and don't work because I play a druid almost every day. When I notice these things, I rarely speak about them in game. Most people are not interested in discussions like this in the middle of doing something. Mostly, in groups of friends, I flirt and tease or we talk about someone who has moved on.

So, when I have observations/concerns/complaints, I bring them to this board. I fail to understand why that is wrong. This is not really a "fan site". At least I've never thought of it that way. If I want that I'll log onto eqlive or something and see all the array of wonderful products.

I always thought of this as a discussion board about issues. Its also fun much of the time, at least for me.

Reducing experience for soloing does not make it impossible to solo.

It is no harder to kill a mob than it was two weeks ago, solo.

If your goal is to be able to consisently and always out level all groups by soloing, then you are SOL.

Live with it.

But stop pretending like changing experience makes it IMPOSSIBLE to solo.


I wish some people would at least be honest and say, I want to solo because it should be the fastest way to get experience. Soloing is no longer the fastest way to get experience and I want them to fix it.

Ill say what you said Stripe because I do believe that. When I'm soloing I rely on one person...me. When I'm in a group I am relying on 5 others. In groups I generally get more hit points, more mana regen, less damage done to me by mobs if I do agro them, ETC ETC ETC. The list of being in a group far outweighs what I get solo. If something goes wrong its generally easier to get a rez and get back on my feet sooner. In general its harder for me to die in a group.

If I get a lag hit soloing say frogs I generally die and it has happened on numerous occasions. If I don't pay enough attention and have a couple frogs agro on me I can die as well (using frogs as that was my primary solo xp). If I don't pay attention in a group someone could very well die too but then youre talking a rez click and some down time. If I die in a xp group I get downtime but generally the group is continuing to get experience. Something I cannot do if I die soloing.

Soloing SHOULD give more xp then grouping. Its riskier and if things go bad it generally takes longer to get going again. Thats not to say soloing xp should be tremendously better then grouping xp. Honestly as it is now in groups if they put the xp back to the way it was for soloing I wouldn't notice much difference one way or another...and thats the way it should be.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> Most people are not interested in discussions like this in the middle of doing something.[/quote]

Bingo. My point being that a lot of druids don't follow this and complain all the time in game. This reduces thier the chance of getting a group. Complaining 30 seconds after asking for a group in guild that druids never get groups makes anybody who was just typing an invite delete it.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I see solo xp is *still* better in the prime material so I have every confidence its still better in PoP as well.[/quote]

Zarros:
You're deluding yourself into thinking that solo exp in PoP zones is better than grouping exp in PoP zones, even though you have never soloed in PoP. Your only frame of reference is a comparison of solo exp to group exp in non-PoP zones, neither of which lends credibility to your argument.

I guess I'm just going to have to let you continue believing in the Easter Bunny.

~Firemynd

Whaa.....?

The easter bunny is not real?

Like I said Firemynd, we will have to agree to disagree here.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You haven't had any of your solo ability taken away. Druids are just as capable of soloing today as they were before this so-called nerf.[/quote]

Ok by that logic then, lets say they make rez effects last 5 hours. It would not be a nerf as it does not remove your ability to rez, but I guarentee every cleric and his brother would be up in arms over it in a heartbeat.

LZ

This sounds like the whole charming 'nerf' argument again. I can't charm solo 'as well' as I used to hence I can't do it! Hehe. Firemynd does have a point though. I too am tired of nerfs to soloing and I think this was indeed a nerf, but it's not the end of the world, unless you're 65 with a lot of AA's and burned out on the game already. I could understand the frustration of having things slow down even more under those circumstances.

PoP ZEM's were too high to start with and they lowered them. Maybe they shouldn't have lowered them as much but they indeed were too high. I'm not sure if Firemynd looks at it like that or not. It might be more a matter of principle, and that's what I would agree with. The people like me that like to solo(for various reasons) shouldn't be punished more than anyone else. We should be allowed to play how we see fit and what RL allows us. To nerf a certain playstyle sucks, and for me that's the root of the matter, not literally the fact of less experience.

It's also a noticeable difference, you don't have to be one of the number crunching people and pull out a slide ruler to notice it. It was a little too steep of a cutback in my view.

I don't think summoning was an intentional nerf to soloers, it was put in there to keep casters from standing back with no risk and nuking(or something like that). Runspeed immune I would definitely categorize as such though.

Please don't start any arguments about grouping vs. soloing. I once had a person ignorant enough to say I was anti-social because I soloed. I said "no, I don't group a lot because I either 1. don't have the time and level of commitment or 2. because most pick-up groups I have been in sucked". I get killed a LOT more often in groups than soloing. With soloing I know my limits and I know I only have myself to count on. In groups you have to count on people that might not know how to play their class, are lazy, easily distracted, etc. When I get killed soloing 9 times out of 10 it's because of LD or lag, in groups 9 out of 10 times it's because of incompetence or indifference. That's why in most cases I'm better off relying on myself rather than other people for my experience(at least if I want to get some consistently without death downtime). Not that I don't find groups enjoyable, especially guild ones, but sometimes it's just more hassle than it's worth. As soon as SoE sends out a patch that makes everyone play better and stay attentive and fill their roles in a group then I will group more, until then don't NERF, yes NERF, the best way of staying alive and playing the way RL dictates that I do.

Are you saying there is more risk involved in grouping versus soloing then? Sounds like it. Ive grouped for every ounce of experience on my character since level 7. Yes hes a cleric, but by grouping that much you learn who is a good groupmate and who isnt. This is part of the learning process of grouping for all of your experience.

All I will say about the social aspect of grouping is that the more you group and the more of a rep you build as a good player the more contacts and possible groupmates you will build. If you have tended to mostly solo you will not build that sort of "network" as such. Grouping engenders more grouping, soloing engenders more soloing. Human nature at work here.

All that aside I have 10 to 20 Druid friends that I tend to group with whenerver I can because I know how good they are at making up for whatever the group is lacking or for simply keeping my ass alive while I keep everyone else on their feet. Druids are a GREAT groupmate for a Cleric. It ought to be noted that I almost always construct groups with an enchanter in them.


Belkram

This is a ridiculous arguement. If the group exp bonus wasn't included with ZEM reduction, would you have called it a nerf then? Of coure you would have. Even though noone lost any abilities to group, it would would've been a nerf nonetheless. Some would've argued that the ZEM were too high to begin with and called it a "fix", implying the high ZEMs were a bug in their attempt to argue with semantics rather than substance (of course, they would've have logged on their toon with 200 AA shortly thereafter).

Someone posts an idea that could bring life to a zone that would be harmful to noone and the anti-idea people are tripping over each other to find a reason to give the idea a scarlet letter. Yes it was mathematically possible to implement the group bonus as it is without nerfing the soloists' exp, you need therapy if you believe druids are having trouble getting groups because they all complain in groups, a level 65 cleric will get groups without a rep or social circle and there was a "KEI nerf" or else I wouldn't have to cast KEI and C5 on the same group of characters who all gain exp together.

kill'n solo in PoS, I get 5 % aa xp per frog kill (grr i miss my 8 % per kill) In PoT I get 5 T aa xp per kill of a Diaku solo. In a group in PoTactics I get one and a half aa per hour and a half from a well blneced group. Tactics with a well balenced group way way way out does solo. If you are not making good xp in a well balenced group you need to hunt else where.

The PoP xp nurf did not help all groups, it helped the "Classic" group. When I log in If I can get a tank/cleric/slower then I do so and earn awsome xp. If i cant I try to group any way I can. In the past a necro/chanter/druid/ranger could make decent, not great not awsome, xp. That is not happening now. In the past If I ate a death I made it up in 30 minutes or less and then started gainign again. Now it takes much much longer to get to the same point with an odd group. Before charm was nurfed I used pets as tank for odd ball groups, well thats gone. Both of htese in combination with summoning mobs, mobs that quad for bout 1k and yard trash that will maybe give you 1 % aa per kill is doing nothing but hurting everyone that does not have a group before they log in that night.

Could I take a necro/chanter/ranger/druid to an old world zone and xp yaa but who wants to. 9 out of 10 if the chanter is not your friend then he off to PoT/HoH, ect to get some decent xp (decent xp compaired to what 60+ toon are use to) If you do not have a slower you loose you ability to use a melee for melee.

All the changes that has happened to the game has help'd alot of "Classic groups" but if you dont have that golden combo of tank/slower/rezer you loose your ability to earn xp.

I wan in PoS last night compairing xp to PoTactic and CoD. After clearing all frogs from the desert and seeing my xp I log'd off and played Birthright.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>In the past a necro/chanter/druid/ranger could make decent, not great not awsome, xp. That is not happening now. [/quote]

Lets say that prior to the xp changes this 4 person group killed a creature worth 100 xp. 100xp plus the old group bonus (I think 12% for 4 people) gives 112 or so xp. Divided by four gives 28 xp each.

After the changes the ZEM has gone down by about 20% by most reports (although more in PoStorms so thats not the best place for a group) so lets call it 80 xp per kill. 80xp plus the new group bonus of 60% for a 4 man group gives 128 xp. Divided by four gives 32 xp each.

So the xp has in fact gone up. If only all nerfs were like that.

/taps the microphone

Test Test.....

Soloing class's got nerfed, Grouping class's got a slight increase. How anyone could wish more of this kind of action from SoE? Wishing nerfs on anyone is aweful. Wishing nerfs on other people as long as they dont hit you is even worse.

Don't give me that 'network' rubbish. So called 'networks' of friends aren't always on when you are or they form groups when you aren't online and when you do log on they're already full. If it's supposed to be a social game then why are you relegating yourself to the same small group of people over and over anyway? That sounds like a fairly cloistered gaming life to me.

Reps don't mean much either if the people aren't there or groups are full. You can have the best rep on the server and still be hurting for groups because you play a druid. People don't want druids as much as a lot of the other classes, good rep or not. Once people accept that fact we can move on and have a serious conversation.

You misunderstand me. I was referring to a previous poster who stated that xp for an "odd" group had gone down. I was pointing out that the xp for that group would in fact have gone up.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Wishing nerfs on anyone is aweful.[/quote]

Not necessarily. Nerfs are often necessary in order to preserve the game as a whole. As an example the cleric Kunark BP used to cast a mana free complete heal. If that hadnt been nerfed then the game would have been very broken for a long time, so the nerf was a good one.
I'm not necessarily saying that the solo nerf falls into the same category, but a blanket statement saying that all nerfs are awful seems ridiculous to me.

I never said all nerfs are awful, some actually seem reasonable... manastone's and CH bp's for a couple examples, but there can be no debate that soloers got nerfed, and saying "if only all nerfs were like this" is asking SoE for more of the same.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Hmm the Kunark BP can still cast a mana free complete heal ..... It was nerfed in various forms until the present in which it puts an unremoveable buff on the player it was cast on that prevent another from landing till it wears off. It also has a pretty long cast time.

When POP came out enchanters with the correct spells, gear and flags could solo for about 10x or more the exp a group could. Through various nerfs it's a lot different these days. Allmost close to being even except solo you have a pretty consistent 'group' where with a pickup group that usally isn't that case. Solo you also can do it in any zone you have access to where a group may be limited based on some of it's other members. Currently best exp is still solo'ing non-summoning red cons in POP zones. To bad it's so darn tedious and unforgiving.

Knowing that exp is finally getting balanced is compensation enough.

Solo exp was too good for too long. Its was a long time coming that they correct it. You can still solo well for good amount of exp. You just can solo now for an abnormally sick amount of exp. You must be nuts if you think you need to be compensated for something so bloody overpowered. You still have the the option of grouping or soloing where other classes can only do 1. Big difference if a class like a war can't get group vs a druid who can't. Druid can go solo, the war logs.

The druid class is damn solid and balanced both in exp groups and raiding, and exp is finally becoming balanced.

<strong>Solo exp was too good for too long.</strong>

It's hard claiming it's ever been too good. I think the proper description is that it "sucked less" than group XP. 18 points for level 3 in an AA ability, thats at least 9 hours jerking off, er, I mean playing with yourself, er, "soloing" to get that. Too good? Not really. Group XP was just way too bad. :p

Out side of the elemental planes where are yall get'n better xp solo then in a group?


<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
Lets say that prior to the xp changes this 4 person group killed a creature worth 100 xp. 100xp plus the old group bonus (I think 12% for 4 people) gives 112 or so xp. Divided by four gives 28 xp each.

After the changes the ZEM has gone down by about 20% by most reports (although more in PoStorms so thats not the best place for a group) so lets call it 80 xp per kill. 80xp plus the new group bonus of 60% for a 4 man group gives 128 xp. Divided by four gives 32 xp each.

So the xp has in fact gone up. If only all nerfs were like that.
[/quote]

Your math is flawed. There is no way possible to say that xp is better without taking into account time and death.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>18 points for level 3 in an AA ability, thats at least 9 hours [/quote]

Wow! I would love to gain consistant exp as fast as that. As it is, I can get about 6 AA in 9 hours if I am 2 boxing my druid for Ensnares while taking none of the exp in HoH.

I think your comments addressed the real problem though. It shouldn't take more than 2 hours of optimium efficiency grinding for any level 65 to gain an AA whether grouped or solo. That groups and soloists have gained AAs at slower rates than that, despite their best efforts, is and has been a flaw in the game. That a group or soloist gains significantly better rates of exp in zones accessed only by raid flags is another flaw that compounds the issue. Of course Super Druid in the elemental planes thinks the exp is fine because it is where he she hunts.

These discussions are so relative to where everyone is in the game. It used to be that we could talk about level 60 druids as a whole. It is no longer true that a level capped member of any class can speak authoritatively about the capabilities of their own class in the same level. I made the mistake of looking at some other people's Magelo profiles for the first time this morning and I am shocked. I quit raiding long ago, so I really had no idea just ridiculous the difference had become between what could be acquired outside of raiding and by raiding. Consider the following differences between 2 maxed level 65 enchanters with roughly the same AAs:
1. Raiding chanter has more than twice the unbuffed HPs
2. Raiding chanter has 50% more mana
3. Raiding chanter has 40% more AC
4. Raiding chanter 13 more mana regen from item effects
5. Raiding chanter 14 more FT (more if there isn't a FT cap)
6. Raiding chanter has 40% mana preserve (assuming no stacking)
7. Raiding chanter has a jolt type effect similar to a free Boggle

Obviously there are more effects and differences in resists and such, but I think the differences already show above are startling enough. Clearly that raiding chanter is dealing with an entirely different game than I am when they hunt for exp where I hunt. Who is the bench mark for what should be achievable? Since this has been a grouping game since inception, I would hope that difficulty and exp gain is tested for those characters such as mine as the standard.

Just as it is very clear that the raiding chanter and I are experiencing two very different games in the same class and at the same level, I am more convinced than ever that it is definitely time to not be shy about silencing the folks from other classes who come here and tell druids what it is like to be a druid. We can't find agreement among druids about what it is like to be a druid because it is in fact so different for us, even at the same levels.

I conclude the reality of whether or not soloing is still viable varies from character to character. Of course it is relatively risk free and efficient to you when you have twice as many hit points, spells cost 40% less mana, your AC is 40% higher, you have 50% more mana and regen 27 more mana per tick than the other guy trying the same thing.

*I didn't even get into the access to spells. I'm sure I'm not the only non-raiding druid still looking for level 63 spells, hoping to find them for sale in the bazaar every day.

Bloody overpowered? You're bloody wrong. If you want to nerf soloing then you better attack the classes that can do it best: shamans, beastlords, and necros. A beastlord in my guild was soloing named mobs in Veksar today. There's no way a druid could do that with even the yard trash being able to summon in there. There might be a few select spots where a druid could if he had the moxy to withstand the summoning but it wouldn't be easy.

Druids balanced? Yeah right. That must be why we still can't get groups and don't get welcomed into guilds with open arms, because we're just so damned groupable and raid viable. Get a clue please.

I would say the strongest soloers for dealing with mobs that summon are shamans and beastlords. Mages and necromancers are good with summoning mobs, but can have issues if it comes to needing to pet chain. We rock for soloing because we can a) slow and b) have *massively* efficient pet heals, not to mention an able selection of other debuffs, dots, and (in the case of beastlords) capable melee DPS.

There are some pretty rough times one has to get through to get to the point where thats possible though. The upper 40s, before getting a new pet at 49, are particularly brutal to get through. Pet is light blue at 44, and green at 48. |I

Yep, and druids can solo red cons at 65 that hit for 900's, there are locations where different mixes of abilities shine. Now go look at clerics, warriors and rogues they can't solo anything that is even remotely hard.

If druids can solo those red cons that hit for 900's then the classes I listed sure can.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Your math is flawed. There is no way possible to say that xp is better without taking into account time and death. [/quote]

If only you actually took the time to read things before commenting on them.

The original post which I disagreed with stated that a 4 person group got better xp before the group/ZEM xp changes than afterwards. I compared the xp a group would have gotten before the change with the xp after the change.

At no time does time and death factor into this. If you think there is a mistake with my maths then please point it out. Although I realise that this would involve reading my post in full and comparing it to the quote.

somewhere..way back there...someone finally hit the nail on the head. the xp nerf/change/whatever should have happened within 2 weeks of PoP coming out. Hell the dummies at sony would have extended pop's shelflife by a year.

OK, this is just a straight out opinion which we are all entitled to, but this is a very serious question that I've been pondering while reading the endless threads of discussions on this topic.

What in the world is wrong with fast xp?

I mean seriously folks. A lot of us have gone from 1-65. A lot of us have 100, 200, 300 AA. A LOT of us are SICK of the xp grind.

This is a game. Meaning play at leisure, relax, enjoy, do it for kicks, fun, etc. Why should there not be fast xp rewards?

OMG, he got 100AA in a month! Just ONE month!

Ok, let's take a look at that statement. I don't have the exact totals of AAs memorized, but if you were to max your AAs out for most classes, you would need slightly more than 500 AA or something in that neighborhood. This works out to me that at 100AA a month, you would max your AAs somewhere in your 6 motnh of AAxping.

Uh, why is that unreasonable? That doesn't include your regular 1-65 xp grind either. Why does it need to take years to max out a character if it is what you want to do? And don't feed me the BS line of 'Because they need timesinks to make money'. I call it a BS line because these aren't Sony execs who are here on the board posting saying that xp is too much. These are everyday players who play the xp grind day in and day out saying xp needs to be reduced. Have you lost your mind?

Why does xp need to be reduced? ZEMs for you nitpickers out there who are reading this for syntax errors rather than content. Frankly, if Aidon (and I pick Aidon because he's an out front figure with thick skin and we're both a bit bitter) goes out and logs in and gets an AA every 30 min, what does it do to me? Erm.. I believe the answer is nothing. And think about it realistically, and AA every 30 min would mean over 250 hours of xp grind to max your AA. That's classified as proper investment returns in my opinion.

And frankly, if you think that xp rolls in too fast for soloers or whatever, ask yourself why it bothers you. I mean I could give a flying wergernerger that Bill Gates makes more cash than I can count as long as I am eating and having a roof. If I get 100 AA this month, why are you going to tell me I am xping to fast? Because you didn't get 100 AAs?

I'm not shaking a finger but trying to understand the thinking here. Why does the xp have to slow down? IF you don't want fast xp, then um... don't kill mobs? It's all about options and having them and pretty much no one here has the right to say Soloers shouldn't be able to grind out ungodly amounts of xp. That just sounds like the green eyed monster to me.

My opinion still stands at the point that xp should be raised to where getting an AA in 30 minutes of xping should be realistic. Otherwise we are all looking at years of XP grind to get to the 'End' of the grind as it were. And frankly, I'd rather be killing the Big Guys.

My concern with too fast xp is that having it come too easy or too fast cheapens the individual feeling of accomplishment, and that invariably certain camps are identified as having even easier/faster experience are usually sources of the most inter-player strife. I think optimally, it should take about 3-5 hours to complete a single AA point, start to finish. The average player, playing that much a night, should be able to do 30ish AA in a month.

Of course, I'm entitled to my opinion and everyone else is entitled to theirs. It really doesn't matter what I think so much as it matters if I find the rewards worth the effort involved to get them. Make the effort too high, and people get frustrated and leave, make it too easy, and people get bored and leave.

I do think that revamping the xp model in this way (the new group xp bonuses) was badly overdue though. I also think the PoP ZEMS were ridiculously overinflated for the real risk involved in those zones. I am waiting for graveyards to be isntalled in Seb and Dragon Necropolis for example. The timing of reducing the ZEMs to be done with the group xp enhancements certainly can make it look like a direct nerf to soloing, although as I have stated before I see it as a sane adjustment to a zone's xp mod and a long overdue fix to grouping. However, its a perception issue, and one based on feelings/opinions of whats right, as opposed to fact.

<strong>My concern with too fast xp is that having it come too easy or too fast cheapens the individual feeling of accomplishment, and that invariably certain camps are identified as having even easier/faster experience are usually sources of the most inter-player strife.</strong>

How does it cheapen anything to be able to actually finish the xp grind of a character in about 6 months plus whatever it took you to get to 65? I mean seriously. I realize you will always have powerlevelers and everything else, but in the normal course of things, you are looking at an 8 month period if you were able to do 100 AA a month. You are very much entitled to your opinion and I am in no way trying to say you are wrong. I am just trying to communicate that 8 months is a lengthy time involvement.

As for 3-5 hours an AA, in order to get 30 AA a month, you would need a 3-5 hour session every single day. Now while some do this, I hardly think that (once again my opinion) that should be the set pace.

There are so many things to do in EQ (raiding, questing, tradeskilling, exploring, flagging, and dare I say actual roleplaying) that to consume such an incredibly large amount of time with a monotonous pull pull kill kill seems like such a profound waste.

Now an argument can be raised that if everyone is able to get a toon maxxed out in an 8 month period, competition will be too stiff for high end mobs, etc, etc. This brings up the old instancing argument for a fix which doesn't need to be gone into in this thread.

Then others will say that if people 'finish' their toons that they will get bored and leave. To which I say... And? The game shouldn't be designed to where you have to be hooked into it forever. You should be able to finish and move on. And the money still rolls in because if you make a good product that people enjoy the experience of finishing they come back and buy the next one. I would say the best example being Diablo 2. The game sold a million copies the first week. Because people were happy with the experience they had with the first one. Mainly because you could finish and start another character and the whole random dungeon every time you started a new game thing was cool as well. I play a total of 6 characters, others play multiples as well. If you could finish a character in EQ, I'm willing to wager that the majority would start a new class to do it over with rather than get bored and leave.

Same could be done with the EQ series if Sony got some actual players to sit down in a room and chat it out. But because of the nature of EQ and the vast amount of time involved to get anywhere, I (and maybe others) have set a deadline to be done with it. Once I get out of college there won't be time to have a career, have a family and have EQ. But I am also compulsive about finishing things and getting to the end. Sue me.

But bottom line, xp shouldn't be a punishment inflicted on you to get to where you want to be. It all lies in people's definition of easy. Do I think you should be able to get a college credit in 30 minutes, no. But an AA in EQ? Absolutely. It's a game. And 30 mintues invested into a game should be sufficient time to see some marker of reward. (especially since most abilities are 4+ aas anyway, MGB would still run you more time than the average play session)

"Bloody overpowered? You're bloody wrong. If you want to nerf soloing then you better attack the classes that can do it best: shamans, beastlords, and necros. A beastlord in my guild was soloing named mobs in Veksar today. There's no way a druid could do that with even the yard trash being able to summon in there. There might be a few select spots where a druid could if he had the moxy to withstand the summoning but it wouldn't be easy."

Yes soloing was overpowered, hello charm ?
And of course you convieniently forgot enchanters in your list, you know, the class that could solo the best AND got re-adjusted much like other soloing classes. OMFG soloing in veksar! The shame! Shall we talk about druid charming and named mobs next perhaps? Of course not! It wouldn't help your argument!

"Druids balanced? Yeah right. That must be why we still can't get groups and don't get welcomed into guilds with open arms, because we're just so damned groupable and raid viable."

Balanced, lets see. Druids are great for soloing and soloing is still viable regardless of any of the nerfs to date. Solid in groups - druids heals allow for main healing in exp groups. Buffs - Bo9 anyone ? Ability to add some DPS with nukes ?

Raiding...of course buffs, Bo9 again ? Rampage healing? Debuffing ? Sotw? Nuking ?

What else do you want ? God mode ?

"Get a clue please."

Thanks, I got one. I'm just not a tard when it comes to playing my class. If people really can't hack playing a druid, maybe they should go play a class that does nothing but hit an attack butto.

List examples of druids soloing the same caliber of nameds as the other classes listed. You can't? Oh too bad. You're right about enchanters though, forgot to include them.

Druid charm? Only works against animals(which there are few of) and has a risk factor to it. The pet classes aren't going to have their pets turn on them anytime soon.

Soloing still viable regardless of the nerfs to date? According to who? You? Sorry, but you don't seem to be a very partial or objective judge of that.

Druid heals do not allow for main healing in a group without a slower, unless of course we're talking about a non-PoP zone which you will get crap experience in since you have to be over 60 to get the really good heals. We do get TR at 58 and that will work in most places but again it's going to be in the older zones, and these are still mostly abandoned now even with the change to the blue range.

Bot9? Yeah right. That's if you can even get it or afford it. It doesn't get used a lot with all the cleric AC/HP buffs out there. Combine it with symbol and it becomes a lot more serviceable but again you have to have it to use it.

Debuffing? Hahaha! Yeah, if you like dying a lot. That's if it even sticks. SoE with their ridculous logic makes it so a druid almost needs a pre-debuff to get his to stick. Oh the absurd irony.

Rampage healing? LOL! Thanks for proving my point. So we're only good enough to heal the rampage tank? That kind of contradicts what you said above about our healing being so great.

Sorry, but I really don't think you do have a clue. I'm not a tard either when it comes to playing a druid but I know it has many limits. Druids are a better class then they used to be, no doubt. But that's not saying a lot when you consider how bad off we were before.

"List examples of druids soloing the same caliber of nameds as the other classes listed. You can't? Oh too bad. You're right about enchanters though, forgot to include them.

Druid charm? Only works against animals(which there are few of) and has a risk factor to it. The pet classes aren't going to have their pets turn on them anytime soon."

Ah so now you're saying you can't use charm to defeat the same mob the bst did? Give me a break. Charmed pet > any bst pet, period. Don't even bother comparing charmed pets vs class pets and talk about risk factor considering your charm pet does 9873259832795832 times the damage and will blow away a soloing bst expwise.

"Soloing still viable regardless of the nerfs to date? According to who? You? Sorry, but you don't seem to be a very partial or objective judge of that."

I sure as hell am, I'm not your average crybaby like some. POP exp has been so blown out of proportion from the get go. Soloing classes raking up 100's of AA's on their own being totally out of proportion with group exp. Big whoop, your solo exp is more in line with group exp as it should be. You STILL have the option to solo effectively so stop with the pity already.

"Druid heals do not allow for main healing in a group without a slower, unless of course we're talking about a non-PoP zone which you will get crap experience in since you have to be over 60 to get the really good heals. We do get TR at 58 and that will work in most places but again it's going to be in the older zones, and these are msotly abandoned now even with the change to the blue range."

Main healing, not a problem in a pop with any slow class, period. Oops did I not mention that? Forgetfullness must be catchy.

"Bot9? Yeah right. That's if you can even get it or afford it. It doesn't get used a lot with all the cleric AC/HP buffs out there. Combine it with symbol and it becomes a lot more serviceable but again you have to have it to use it."

Bo9 not used over cleric HP/AC buffs ? I think we should stop this discussion right there.

"Debuffing? Hahaha! Yeah, if you like dying a lot. That's if it even sticks. SoE with their ridculous logic makes it so a druid almost need a pre-debuff to get his to stick. Oh the absurd irony."

Ever see druids debuff on raids ? Odd, I could of sworn I've done it once or twice. You know what that is right ? I'll give you a hint, try not to cast your debuff when the mob is at 100% health.

"Rampage healing? LOL! Thanks for proving my point. So we're only good enough to heal the rampage tank? That kind of contradicts what you said above about our healing being so great."

No, what I said that druid healing allows for main healing in EXP groups. In a raid settings you have clerics doing ch chains with druids on backup/ramp, but thanks for mixing that up. Thanks for missing another one.

"Sorry, but I really don't think you do have a clue. I'm not a tard either when it comes to playing a druid but I know it has many limits. Druids are a better class then they used to be, no doubt. But that's not saying a lot when you consider how bad off we were before."

Obviously I don't have a clue. All this coming from somoene who can't solo, can't main heal in an exp group, can't debuff mobs, and doesn't bother with Bo9 because of all the cleric HP/AC buffs out there........Riiiiiight. I can group and main heal, I can solo if I wish to, I debuff on raids, buff, backup heal, heal rampage tanks, so yeah driuds are useless and can't do any of this @#%$. Druids have NO SPOT in being in exp groups or raids, DELETE THE CLASS NOW.

Wicked, I will be blunt. I don't believe your posts here are from the perspective of druid. More clearly stated, I believe your primary interests are for another class that you play and you are trying to present your position fraudulently. I suspect you do have a druid that you probably started during the great druid rush of late 1999, but another class has since become your passion.

If I am wrong, then we can disect your posts and I can point out where your grammatical perspective is in conflict.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Wicked, I will be blunt. I don't believe your posts here are from the perspective of druid.[/quote]

I hate to break it to you but a lot of the very top level druids I speak to are very happy with where their class is at the moment and they thing druids are a very powerful class.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they dont play a druid.


<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If I am wrong, then we can disect your posts and I can point out where your grammatical perspective is in conflict.[/quote]

Wow, that would be really convincing. If you can point out some spelling and grammar mistakes in his postings that would pretty much destroy his arguments.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
I hate to break it to you but a lot of the very top level druids I speak to are very happy with where their class is at the moment and they thing druids are a very powerful class.
[/quote]
Are these Druids looking for pickup groups?

I don't know if it's a matter of disagreement on Demasia's part or if he has a point. Wicked seems to talk about druids in something other than first person like he doesn't play one, but at the end he says he knows how to play his class, which sounds like he's making a point that he knows what they can and can't do. *shrug* From the overall perspective of the post though it sounds like he doesn't play a druid or he's got his head in the clouds pre-65 without a lot of AA burn-out.

A druid charm pet? We were talking about nameds, and most nameds are in dungeons...you know, those places without a lot of animals in them, if any. Druid charm doesn't mean jack except for experience groups to add DPS. Sure you can help kill a boss with a pet but then that isn't soloing is it? The charm doesn't give us carte blanche for soloing nameds like it does other classes.

Debuff will still get you aggro even below 100% If you don't know this you must be level 50 or something. It's general knowledge not to cast any debuffs right out of the box. In almost 4 1/2 years of playing most people learn this. This isn't rocket science Wicked, although it seems as if you want to turn it into such.

To summarize, I don't think druids are in as bad a shape as they were, but they need help to make them group desirable and raid viable(I think they bring more to a raid than an exp group). Give us a niche skill/power where we can shine and that will be a temptation to others to group us, then the druid will be in good shape.

"Wicked, I will be blunt. I don't believe your posts here are from the perspective of druid. More clearly stated, I believe your primary interests are for another class that you play and you are trying to present your position fraudulently. I suspect you do have a druid that you probably started during the great druid rush of late 1999, but another class has since become your passion.
"

See, this is the typical theme of the board over the years. If someone has a difference of opinion its obviously flawed and must be supressed for whatever reason. See unlike the majority of whiners who infest this boardwho constantly whine about the class, I've been happy with the class from day 1 and continue to play it. So I'll be blunt in saying that people such as yourself serve a purpose just to wash out points that have anything positive to say about the class.

"If I am wrong, then we can disect your posts and I can point out where your grammatical perspective is in conflict."

Wowowow you're going to point out my grammatical errors? Let me call up my old grammar teacher, maybe you can get together and discuss that some tea and crumpet!


"hate to break it to you but a lot of the very top level druids I speak to are very happy with where their class is at the moment and they thing druids are a very powerful class.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they dont play a druid."

Bingo!

"I don't know if it's a matter of disagreement on Demasia's part or if he has a point. Wicked seems to talk about druids in something other than first person like he doesn't play one, but at the end he says he knows how to play his class, which sounds like he's making a point that he knows what they can and can't do. *shrug* From the overall perspective of the post though it sounds like he doesn't play a druid or he's got his head in the clouds pre-65 without a lot of AA burn-out."

Oh no the grammar police are out again, for shame. So forgive me when I say 'druids can', thats pretty much because all druids can do the things I've spoken of. Theres no rocket science to it.

I don't play a druid ? Who said that ? I'm in the pre-65 without alot of AA burn out ? Thats alot of speculation. I play a druid, I've raked in quite a bit of AA since pop thanks to druid abilities, I've raided pretty much all pop zones and I continue to play and like this class. Shoot me!

Anyone who doesn't think this class can significantly contribute to a group or raid environment doesn't need to whine about it, they need to find another class to play. I suggest you play a warrior and see how that goes.

I do play a warrior also but the druid will always remain my primary. I like druids, that's why I don't want to to see them pushed aside when it comes to grouping or raids.

I never said I had trouble playing a druid, but it would be more enjoyable to play one if there wasn't a stigma attached to them. Some of it's bad perception about the class from other players, whether it's from a bad experience or not knowing what a druid can do or whatever. For that reason plus lacking any kind of real 'niche' skill a druid will sit in a zone LFG longer than a cleric or shaman(or a lot of other non-priest classes).

I also know they can't solo as well as other soloing classes in most cases. Charm got nerfed because of people crying about enchanters use of it in PoP, certainly not from any perceived druid abuse. That's because they CAN'T abuse it. PoP doesn't offer the charm targets for druids like it does enchanters because of the animal/level restriction. We also have no way to mitigate the summoning and runspeed changes of named mobs with fear or slow. Without either of those we are going to lose without a pet for sure. So you say get a pet? There's very little(if anything) in dungeons for druids to charm and most of the named mobs are in dungeons. The original point was whether a druid can solo the same things that most of the other soloers can, not whether they can solo at all, and I would have to say a definite NO in regards to the former.

If you enjoy the class then more power to you Wicked. I enjoy it too, but only up to a point. I want to be able to group more. I want something that makes me wanted and needed as a class, but unfortunately I just don't see that at the moment.

Wicked, name and server would be the simple reply, or would that be difficult for you? Maybe a magelo? Maybe you have something to hide?

I also have my doubts when somebody mentions raid debuffing as an ability. We've proved time and time again that the mana spent debuffing in almost all raid type encounters might as well be used for an extra nuke or two instead.

I don't want to get mixed up in the argument here, but just a note for that record that solo exp in ME is noticeably less now (multi-root-rotting centis, as I have for exp most of this level so far). Not a huge nerf, but takes an extra couple centis per %, so a definitely slowdown.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I hate to break it to you but a lot of the very top level druids I speak to are very happy with where their class is at the moment and they thing druids are a very powerful class.---<em>AmonraSet</em>[/quote]
I think we can all agree that the "very top level" of all classes have no problems finding and measuring up in groups and are very powerful.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they dont play a druid.---<em>AmonraSet</em>[/quote]
I'm not sure how you contrived that cause and effect relationship from my post. Do you not recognize that it is pertinant information for the rest of us to know that your primary interests are for another class when posting your opinions on a druid board about druids? I think you understand that the validity of any arguement is tied to the credibility of the source. Personally, I have a great distaste for people who do this because they are just as likely to be willing to lie, cheat and steal to advance their agendas in other venues of their life.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Wow, that would be really convincing. If you can point out some spelling and grammar mistakes in his postings that would pretty much destroy his arguments.---<em>AmonraSet</em>[/quote]
I didn't say anything about spelling or grammar mistakes. Because you agree with his conclusions you are willling to try to trivialize my comments with a silly one liner? Interesting how perspective affects us, isn't it?

Dunno about you guys but I kill anything thats up in PoS, giants, trees, bears, snakes etc, regardless of whether or not they summon.

AmonraSet

I sorry if I misunderstood your post. From what I understood you are compairing per kill xp before and after the xp changes. While with the group bonus per kill xp may be better hunting has shown less xp in total. I was stating that your math is flawed because it is not taking into acount variables that do make a difference in xp per sitting or per xp session. In a 2 - 3 hours session I get less xp then I did befre they reduced the xp from example FFrogs from 8 % per kill pre nurf to 5 % xp post nurf. I am no math wiz but i think that is closer to a 30 % drop or so?

some one that posted above that Im too lazy to look up

i am nto sure how you raid or what you raid but for me doign Sont, Greg, WToV and the like i do not get agro from debuffing. I am not sure how you debuff. We usuall break up the druid debuffs across a couple of druids so agro is not focued on one person. 10 out of 10 times I can toss a hand of ro at 95 % (mobs) hps and not get agro while doing my other stuff rampage healing, bridge healing, MGB SotW what not.

I am not sure how you can say that debuffs are a waste of time? One of our best is a lure FR debuff:

per CastersRealm:
Hand of Ro Single Target AC, ATK & FR Debuff (Max: 72) PoP. Evo. Unknown. 165

What nuke even comes close to the mana cost? The only one I could find was:
Firestrike Fire-based Direct Damage (Max: 302) Evo. Vendor. 155

I am confussed there. Did I misunderstand someone saying that for the mana nuke'n is better?

I do agree that there is nothing wrong with solo'n. Can a druid charm a pet and kill a mob? yaa with little issue. Can a druid charm a pet and kill a mob for loot? Very small chance of that. I always understood that a groups bonus was they can dungon crawl for some of the best loot out there. Druid charm for xp as very few animals are in the zones that dropable loot is found in. Yaaa I know that PoS is out there but compair one zone that a druid can get something out of to the numerous dungons/zones lacking charmable pets that are out of a druids reach.


I mean no offance and I do not mean to attack anyone. I am reading/posting in an attempt to understand. Think im going to add that to all my posts from now on, way too many angry/jaded peep round here.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Why do we solo:

1) Out of a 6 hour play night it take 4 or more hours to find a group. Why subject yourself to that if you have the oppertunity to solo.
2) It is royal and complete pain in the a$$ to start a group from scratch. By the time you've found the right people, half have already left to other groups.
3) Because we are simply not the ESSENTIALS for a group.

I think most druids would like to group if it was actually easy to find a group, well, easy to find groups, hard to get an invite. The question is how to make it easier to get into a group. Assuming you're talking pop (ya they made old world non green, but you really think your going to get xp compared to pop), then mandatory classes in a group are
1- Monk/Ranger to pull
2- Warr/Pal to tank
3- Cleric to heal/tranq/rez
4- Wiz for max DPS
5- Enchanter/Shaman for buffs/slows/backup heal
6- 1 spot left, gee only 7 other classes to choose from for this last slot.[/quote]

I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to call bull**** on this.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>1) Out of a 6 hour play night it take 4 or more hours to find a group. Why subject yourself to that if you have the oppertunity to solo.[/quote]
If it takes you 4 hours out of a 6 hour play time to find a group, try turning on LFG and/or remember to evac instead of gate the next time the group is whiping out.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>2) It is royal and complete pain in the a$$ to start a group from scratch. By the time you've found the right people, half have already left to other groups.[/quote]
It's not any harder for a druid to build a group than any other class.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>3) Because we are simply not the ESSENTIALS for a group.[/quote]
Actually druids are the ESSENTIALS for a group. A group needs a tank, a slower, and a <em>healer</em>. As a tank, I generally want a healer. I don't really care if it is a cleric or druid, I prefer either over having a second shaman in the group for healing. There are many times I <em>prefer</em> a druid healer over a cleric.

Get off the "woah is me" kick.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Actually druids are the ESSENTIALS for a group. A group needs a tank, a slower, and a healer. As a tank, I generally want a healer. I don't really care if it is a cleric or druid, I prefer either over having a second shaman in the group for healing. There are many times I prefer a druid healer over a cleric.[/quote]

Well, I'm gonna have to call bull**** too. Because I don't think you're being honest about accepting druids and clerics equally, and the evidence for my suspicion is in your own post:

"If it takes you 4 hours out of a 6 hour play time to find a group, try turning on LFG and/or <strong>remember to evac instead of gate the next time the group is whiping out."</strong> -Graal

You've obviously had a bad experience with druids at some point, if you truly think it was appropriate to dispense such a patronizing 'tip'.

Unfortunately, Graal, you can't personally group all the hundreds of druids on every server. Even if you're being honest, you'd be in the vast <em>minority</em> who actually consider druids equal to clerics in group settings. The other 99% of the population apparently prefers a class with <span style="text-decoration:underline">all</span> the 'healing role' attributes which clerics bring .. including very fast heals, group heals, and the ability to live through heal aggro without snatching the whole group to zone line.

Of course, your class being paladin, you can provide much of what druids cannot in a main healer role, so perhaps your experience reflects a perspective to which the other 13 non-druid classes cannot possibly relate. I guess, then, we should just overlook your trolling and move along.

~Firemynd

<strong>Get off the "woah is me" kick</strong>

It's "Woe is me".

Woah is something you tell at horses...or the insane druid puller.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You've obviously had a bad experience with druids at some point, if you truly think it was appropriate to dispense such a patronizing 'tip'.[/quote]

Actually, the only bad experience I've ever had <em>grouped</em> with a druid was when she ported us to south ro instead of using succor to get us from one side of the SG zone to the other...twice. ;) And that was absolutely hillarious the second time. I love grouping with druids.

The part you quoted was me finding it hard to believe that a primary healer would consistently spend 4 hours LFG if they didn't have a rep as a complete and total idiot. Not being able to find a group is something that happens to everyone at times, but to consistently have that sort of problem indicates 1) too many healers and/or 2) a very bad reputation and/or 3) forgot to put on the damn LFG tag.

If someone spends 4 hours LFG consistently, it isn't because they are a druid.

And yes, I knew I misspelled woe, but wasn't gonna take the time to go look it up.

EDIT:

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Unfortunately, Graal, you can't personally group all the hundreds of druids on every server. Even if you're being honest, you'd be in the vast minority who actually consider druids equal to clerics in group settings. The other 99% of the population apparently prefers a class with all the 'healing role' attributes which clerics bring .. including very fast heals, group heals, and the ability to live through heal aggro without snatching the whole group to zone line.[/quote]

Fast cast heals just aren't nearly as needed when a knight is tanking. Both paladins and SKs have group heals, with paladins obviously having better group heals. Hint: group heals simply aren't needed nearly as much with knights tanking.

Heal aggro? I'll leave the out the raucous laughter.

A druid can heal just as well as a cleric for a decent group in tiers 1-3, and all that extra mana left over can actually be used for DPS in terms of nukes. There are certainly some situations where the depth and breadth of cleric healing spells and abilities will save the group, but if the group is on the ball those situations are very rare.

During kunark > Luclin period i beleived the druid class was falling behind more and more.
NOW with pop i beleive druids are a very powerfull class, im sure we could use some tweaks here and there, but were certainly not flawed and dont need any 'drastic' changes.
I dont beleive there is a shortage of places to solo either, its people who just lack the will to explore a bit. Aslong as people think soloing = PoStorms i guess this argument will allways come up.
Only suggestion from me would be to give something to lower level druids, something in the 52 - 57 range that would allow them to function as a main healer for groups still. A druid should allways be able to fill this role in a group, and imo superior heal doesnt cut it for tier 1 pop. (and people group here from 50 + mostly now)

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Fast cast heals just aren't nearly as needed when a knight is tanking. Both paladins and SKs have group heals, with paladins obviously having better group heals. Hint: group heals simply aren't needed nearly as much with knights tanking.[/quote]

That's part of my point, so I'm assuming you misread or misunderstood. To clarify: a druid <span style="text-decoration:underline">can</span> be much more effective as healer when a knight is the group's tank, but that is something which -- as a knight class -- <em><strong>you</strong></em> may be able to appreciate, which almost every other class can't. They will choose a cleric as main healer over druid every time. Typically, even knights will prefer clerics, especially SKs who have no rez.

And yanno, I don't even think it's necessarily wrong for people to choose clerics first as primary healers; the cleric <span style="text-decoration:underline">is</span> designed as a group-centric class and is <strong><em>supposed</em></strong> to be the premier healer in EQ. Thing is, though... if druids are typically chosen last for the healer role rarely chosen for DPS capabilities, where exactly does that leave them in terms of group desirability?

That's what needs to be addressed; whether it means adding something unique to lend druids more appeal for groups, or creating ways for their existing benefits to be more noticeable and/or more effective.

As it stands right now, the druid's main attributes have virtually no visible impact which might help overcome misperceptions. For instance: our debuffs (Ro/Eci) are hardly noticed at all, certainly not against regular exp mobs; our nuke numbers have fallen far behind mage and wizards, actually not far ahead of chanter nukes; and we cannot land critical heals on our 58th and 64th level heals (TR/KR) while clerics 51st and higher have been critting for 15k and more on their 39th level CH heal since the day HG alternate advancement came into the game.

~Firemynd

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Heal aggro? I'll leave the out the raucous laughter.[/quote]

That tells me right there you don't know what you're talking about. Try taking aggro when you have paper mache armor to protect you then come back and make an informed comment.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heal aggro? I'll leave the out the raucous laughter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That tells me right there you don't know what you're talking about. Try taking aggro when you have paper mache armor to protect you then come back and make an informed comment.[/quote]

Went right over your head. We were talking about ME choosing a healer for MY groups, that was the context. In that context, even mentioning heal aggro is laughable. I'm a paladin.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>We were talking about ME choosing a healer for MY groups, that was the context. In that context, even mentioning heal aggro is laughable. I'm a paladin. [/quote]

No, we weren't really talking about YOU. This discussion had nothing to do with YOU until YOU posted YOUR opinion. And to that, I respond with the same things I already said to YOU:

"Unfortunately, Graal, you can't personally group all the hundreds of druids on every server."

"Of course, your class being paladin, you can provide much of what druids cannot in a main healer role, so perhaps your experience reflects a perspective to which the other 13 non-druid classes cannot possibly relate."

~Firemynd

Sure Fyre...how many tank classes are there?

"Unfortunately, Graal, you can't personally group all the hundreds of druids on every server. Even if you're being honest, you'd be in the vast minority who actually consider druids equal to clerics in group settings. The other 99% of the population apparently prefers a class with all the 'healing role' attributes which clerics bring .. including very fast heals, group heals, and the ability to live through heal aggro without snatching the whole group to zone line."

Lets stop the BS already. Druids can be primary healers for groups all the way up to elmentals in exp groups. Of course clerics are better at it and more efficient, but the fact remains that druids can AND do fulfill roles as primary healer. Cleric tanking = druid tanking outside of DA.

"Of course, your class being paladin, you can provide much of what druids cannot in a main healer role, so perhaps your experience reflects a perspective to which the other 13 non-druid classes cannot possibly relate. I guess, then, we should just overlook your trolling and move along."

Whoah, wait just right there....

Lol!

Talking about paladins in a main healer role now ? Do we really need to continue this stupid discussion ?

Maybe he's just calling your bluff like others are, which of course is just another attempt of yours at derailing someones points because it lists positives to druids (oh no we can't have that - derail the thread now!). I think we're use to the same BS you post time and time again; derail the thread if it has ANYTHING positive to state about druids or if they disagree with you, anyone who doesn't agree is a troll, and if you are lucky enough, you get chosen to be the Firemynd scapegoat! *cough* lotus *cough* mossglade *cough* *cough!*

I'm not surpised with all garbage people post that perceptions on the class won't change. But hey, keep crying wolf and looking for pity to get that mystery new ability or a watered down rip-off ability of another class.

If the verbage and constant dertailing that you spew on this board is any indication of how you play your druid, I can see why you have desirability/grouping issues.

"Whoah, wait just right there"

I think a double woah is in order, right there.

Methinks that was an admission that a Druid/Pally healing combo in a group is a great one.

I know Graal knows that, I am sure the quoted Druid knows it as well.(I took what he said as a compliment).

Either you misunderstood the words, or I did.

"I think we're use to the same BS you post time and time again; derail the thread if it has ANYTHING positive to state about druids or if they disagree with you, anyone who doesn't agree is a troll, and if you are lucky enough, you get chosen to be the Firemynd scapegoat! *cough* lotus *cough* mossglade *cough* *cough!*"

Who wants to be my scapegoat?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
Talking about paladins in a main healer role now ? Do we really need to continue this stupid discussion ?
[/quote]
Umm.

You ferociously misread the quote. He's saying that paladins take up the slack for what we <em>lack</em> in a main healer role.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Talking about paladins in a main healer role now ? Do we really need to continue this stupid discussion ?[/quote]

Wicked, you seriously need to spend a few seconds digesting what you read before jumping to conclusions and attacking people.

FyyrLuStorm and Bric, thanks for taking the time to reply.. it would have been frustrating to have others read Wicked's misinterpretation and jump on his bandwagon o' ignorance.

~Firemynd

By the way, Wicked, it's flaming posts like yours that derail threads, turning harmless discussions into heated arguments loaded with personal attacks.

I'll stand firmly behind what I said: Graal's perspective as a paladin is expectedly different from players of most other classes because paladin abilities supplement all the traditional 'healing role' attributes which druids don't have. If <span style="text-decoration:underline">you're</span> saying that druids <em>can</em> rez, that we <em>do</em> have group heal spells, and that we <em>do</em> have low aggro heal-over-time spells, then I don't think you're playing the same game as the rest of the druids on this board.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Maybe he's just calling your bluff like others are, which of course is just another attempt of yours at derailing someones points because it lists positives to druids [/quote]

In <em><strong>at least</strong></em> three different threads here very recently, I've stated that druids are well-balanced in relative power and that we are perfectly capable of contributing to groups. I have played main healer in exp groups, raid groups, etc., in tiers1-3 without any problems whatsoever -- but I group mostly with friends and guildies who already know my capabilities, and I realize that other druids aren't as fortunate.

The aspect of this class about which I <span style="text-decoration:underline">have</span> posted concerns is the perspectives others have for druid grouping abilities. Absor himself recognized that this has been a problem and will become more significant as soloing is discouraged, and he even posted here last month to ask for suggestions on ways SOE might be able to help change those perceptions.

Don't pin your "anti-druid" label on me, because that won't wash among those who actually *read* my posts.

~Firemynd

As Fire states, druid can and do perform well enough to be primary healers in tiers 2 and 3. I was in a group last night in BoT with a pally MA. Works fine. Hoewever we did have an sk in the group for a while that died twice while pulling. First time he got back to the group with 2 giants, 30% health and his FD failed. Second time, he didnt even make it back into heal range.

2nd time he said, this sucks without a cleric and left. A cleric possibly could have kept him alive once with a fast heal/elixir.

I concider myself a good eq player, I've been playing a druid for 3 years. I've played other classes up to around level 50 (cleric/shammy/warrior) so I know enough about them as well. It really pisses me off to be thought a bad player because I dont have the spells to heal as well as a cleric.

So they nerf soloing xp - fine, Ive started to prefer groups anyway. However they need to give people a reason to invite a druid into their group. In my opinion they can do it in a number of ways.

1. Group heals, heal over time, and res higher than 90%.
2. Ability to slow/haste as well as a similar level shammy.
3. More efficient nukes for greater damage.

I dont think 3 would work, thats a wizards domain and if we could nuke as well as them we would be better than them full stop.

Option 1, would work well, Clerics would still get groups first because of their better melee buffs. But I wouldnt feel like a reject when I die because I have to heal the puller as he's gets back to the group on 30% health with my 75% massive aggro heal or let him die with no res available. We maybe dont need a 96% res but i needs to be better than a 90% pallys get because noone wants a 90% res even though the difference is maybe 1/2 mobs in tier 3.

Option 2 again would work well, Shammys would still get groups first because they can buff stats/focus and Enchanters can deal with adds.

Its no good making us <strong>ALMOST</strong> good enough to fill several roles, all that means is that you <strong>ALMOST</strong> get a group but then get passed over by a class that <strong>IS</strong> good enough to full that role.

Jack of all traders master of none can only cut it solo not in a group.

Cleric heals, excepting remedy, have identical range to druid heals. Furthermore, a cleric would have to *chain* supernal remedy (assuming range was an issue) if a puller was dying to an incoming mob/mobs which generates a metric f*ckton of aggro. Without good crowd control, and sometimes even with it, you simply do not heal a puller till they are safely in camp. Lastly, the actual *real* differance between a 90% rez and a 96% rez (paladin best vs. cleric epic) is less than 1% on the xp bar.

Conclusion: the shadow knight puller was a putz. If you can't handle dying while pulling, you're in the wrong job. Its like the MA complaining "the mobs are hitting me!"

Lastly, Elixers are not life-saving/rescue heals, they are patching heals. A cleric using elixers on a low-health character is gambling. Elixers are sometimes used to buy a little extra time for a cheal to land, but more often using a fast direct heal gets a better effect, just for a bit more mana. Basically, less chance of needing to rez the manasponge...err...tank.

I like the Exp CHANGES not nerf its not a nerf its a fix...... and I am personally glad I dont have that PL'ed Twinkie druid training me as soon as i zone in these days............

You're glossing over the facts here Wicked. Druids 'can' be a primary healer in PoP, but only with a slower(unless it's first tier). Clerics can primary heal without a slower up to elementals. Of course a slower makes it easier on ANY healer but even with the heals a druid has now he's hard put to keep up with a mob that hits fast for 500+ a smack.

Clerics cannot primary heal without a slower unless the tanks are in *extremely* good gear and have the defensive AAs to back it. Even then, without a slower you are going to have a lot of downtime and people need to be *damn* good at controlling aggro and keeping it confined to the main tank.

I have functioned as a cleric without a slower, but rest assured it was with guild tanks who had the gear/AA. Random_tank_01 in teir1 or teir2/3 is not likely to have that level of gear or AA (let alone both) and have an affectionate nickname: paper tank.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Druids 'can' be a primary healer in PoP, but only with a slower(unless it's first tier). [/quote]

I'd have to respectfully disagree, at least conditionally. ;)

There are some factors which immensely alleviate the need for a slower. Here are a few of the conditions I've seen to help when I'm healing for a non-slower group in tiers 2/3; and as more of these are present, the less reliant a group is on slowers:

- Mage with solid pet positioning
- Paladin vs. mobs susceptible to stun
- Ench or Wiz vs. mobs susceptible to root
- Rogue or Monk with proximity awareness
- Ranger with AM3/EQ, plus chance of slow proc
- Necro for group heals, plus insane dots and twitch

Even so, I've played main healer in slowerless groups with only one or two of those advantages yet things went fairly smoothly. As Autumn mentioned, having a slower does make it easier on ANY healer... and I'd totally agree that it'd be crazy not to invite one if there's a slower available.

Something else that many people tend to overlook is the significance of AAs. While it may be true that AA is less meaningful for some classes than others, it's truly amazing to see the difference between a 65th level character with few AAs and that same class same level with a lot of AAs invested.

There are a few folks in my guild who have put as much time as I have towards progressing aaxp, and when I'm able to group with them, hunting 'regular' PoP mobs up to tier3 is all but trivial, even without slower or cleric. One of them is a ranger who can tank better than 99% of warriors I've seen, and another is a warrior who requires such small amounts of healing that I'm free to go full throttle on dps.

They have decent gear, but mostly pre-PoP pre-elemental. It's AA that lend so much to their performance. I'm pretty much in the same boat gear wise, but with max AAs in most categories, my nuking and healing are efficient and effective; and with some CA/LR/ND/CS thrown in for good measure, I don't get squashed as quickly when taking hits.

But I realize this isn't about powergamers. It's about the average player and average pickup groups who prefer to invite other classes based on their known specialties, instead of taking chances on a generalist class who may (or may not) have a bunch of AAs to enhance their abilities.

As much as Alternate Advancement has certainly enabled the druid class to potentially perform on-par in roles normally reserved for specialists, it really hasn't done much to counter misperceptions that the druid can't be as good for groups as he/she is for soloing.

Until those perceptions change, druids remain pretty low on the totem pole for grouping except to an enlightened minority of other players. Therefore in my opinion, soloing must still be considered part of overall balance for this class, and whenever soloing reward is diminished through game changes, I don't think it's wrong for us to seek any help Sony will give us to nudge those perceptions towards changing sooner rather than later.

~Firemynd

Clerics can certainly heal a lot better without a slower than a druid can Zarros. Like I said, any healer will benefit from a slower of course but clerics can hold their own better than a druid without slow.

Also, the factors you listed just aren't going to alleviate the problem enough Firemynd. From my experiences you absolutely need a slower in PoP to be able to druid heal, at least in tier 2 and above. It isn't so much a matter of not being able to heal, it's more a matter of heavy downtime that will ensue because of the amount of mana used. Mana intensive = less efficient.

"By the way, Wicked, it's flaming posts like yours that derail threads, turning harmless discussions into heated arguments loaded with personal attacks."

No, I just don't choose to kiss someone's ass or ignore someone's points and _consistently_ dismiss other posters as trolls, moreso because its convienient for you to do so. Hell if you can go around constantly calling people trolls I think people should be doing the same of you. After all, how many times are you going to tell people they aren't honest in their view or call them trolls before someone does the same of you.

"In at least three different threads here very recently, I've stated that druids are well-balanced in relative power and that we are perfectly capable of contributing to groups."

Wow 3 threads? Should we go through some of those other posts ? Its funny your name shows up in alot of the threads talking about how good druids are, care to guess what you did ?

Cool druids are well balanced. Let the bitching end right there. You're not gonna get a better nuke, you're not gonna get a better heal, you're not gotta get a res, slow, end of discussion, because the class is well b.a.l.a.n.c.e.d. and the less SOE tinkers with it the better.

"I have played main healer in exp groups, raid groups, etc., in tiers1-3 without any problems whatsoever -- but I group mostly with friends and guildies who already know my capabilities, and I realize that other druids aren't as fortunate."

Big whoop! Every other class has this issue. These 'oh give pity to the not so fortunate druids' is a load of BS and I think most people recognize that. Druids blow away so many classes in this game at different levels in both a grouping and soloing environment its not funny.
Druids have the BEST of both worlds and are not limited to just soloing or just grouping where are some classes are totally limited. They're one of the few classes than can do both and do it well. Those poooooor unfortunate druids, keep laying it on thick for some more fuel for yoru fire imo.

Its amazing some people are never happy until they really do have it all.

"Don't pin your "anti-druid" label on me, because that won't wash among those who actually *read* my posts."

Thanks I've read your posts, and by *reading* them so many are anti-druid whenever something postive has been posted about the class. That lotus one was classic, then derailing a main thread questioning why someone would even bother posting why druids are so cook took the cake too. Oh I've read your posts.

But hey everyone, druids suck and need compensation for soloing, regardless of the fact we can still rake in exp like theres no tomorrow compared to most classes in the game. Oh woe is us. I'd love to know what other class can group and be a primary healer or nuker, solo efficiently, buff hps/mana regen, and do all the other tricks that we do. Can anyone think of these classes ?

Now when you go back to the intent of this thread, its about compensating soloers. Since when did balancing ever have to do with compensating? Exp was blown way too far out of proportion comparing a solo class with a full group. Lets not even go into the fact that even before pop it was blown out with quadding. While that warrior in pop made 100aa grouping, a druid rakes in 200-300 aa in the same time. Thats not even talking about necros or enchanters. Of course, theres nothing wrong with that.

Fact is, the compensation for balancing exp is just that: balance. And if you can't see the obvious problem with the way that exp was, then you have no interest in balance. Trying to laying it thick about the 'unfortunate ones' pretty much blew your argument out of the water considering that you can still solo and rake in exp AND group. Your exp rate soloing just isn't going ot be utterly ridiculous compared to a group. Boo hoo.

Okay well now you're just getting silly Wicked. There's a lot of classes that blow druids away soloing...like all the ones that can. We might be able to do all the things you listed but can we do them well? In most cases not well enough according to the players that DON'T take druids into their groups. Druids might not be as bad off off as some people make out but they certainly aren't as well off as you claim either. Druids need something to get them into groups. I don't know what that may be but no class should be without a niche in a game like Everquest.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Graal's perspective as a paladin is expectedly different from players of most other classes because paladin abilities supplement all the traditional 'healing role' attributes which druids don't have. If you're saying that druids can rez, that we do have group heal spells, and that we do have low aggro heal-over-time spells, then I don't think you're playing the same game as the rest of the druids on this board.[/quote]

Yes...and no. Paladins do indeed have the healing attributes that druids lack, and vice versa. That, however, was not my point. The point was that with a knight tank (be it a paladin or SK) ancillary, fast cast heals simply aren't needed nearly as much. The only heal a druid has to cast when grouped with me is generally going to be their big (in)complete heal. That is not because I am handling the other healing needs, its because that is the all the healing the group needs. The druid complete heal really is effectively a complete heal for me, assuming it lands at about 25% health or more, and if anyone else beisdes me is getting hit, I'm doing something wrong. It is uncommon for a CH to land below the 25% mark in pickup groups regardless of what class the healer is.

Just my perspective. Keep in mind 2/3 of the tanks available are knights.

Wow, this thread grew teeth.

For the most part soloing is really dull and unrewarding in terms of loot/fun. Soloing or grouped (when I find one) I make about the same xp/hr, give or take.

The main difference is probably the fact theres no time waiting to start xping forming up a group, you log on, you start killing rather than spending an hr (or 2 mins if your a shammy/cleric) LFG. But the fact PoP mobs that groups can kill drop items that sell for a lot of plat compared to solo mobs to me more than makes up for the inconvenience of having to wait to find a group.

As things stand I've pretty much accepted the fact I will rarely be invited to an xp group, I think its happened twice now other than groups with friends/guildys. I've taken being proactive about it and rounding up my own groups from the LFG list. If you can find a tank and a slower your laughing. Pallys are best if you can find one as they can buff a little as well as heal/res. If you can get a FD puller a shammy is handy as slower, otherwise a chanter. Any kind of damage dealing class is good after that. I quite like a mage/wizzy or another druid (gotta help out you fellow druids and maybe those in the group will see were useful after all) to nuke down mobs that are trying to gate as one of the DPS spots.

People rarely refuse to group with a druid main healer if the other option is to sit in PoK doing nothing. I have been asked a couple of times if I have Karana's Renewl rather than Tunare's which is the most important spell you can have for healing 7k+ hp tanks.

"Clerics can heal better [when mobs aren't slowed]"

Duh. Thanks for stating the obvious.

However, unless the tank in question has absolute aggro control and excellent gear matched with defensive AA's, the cleric is going to be (if they are lucky) *chaining* complete heals or (if they aren't) chaining supernal remedy or supernal light. The latter two spells are grotesquely mana inefficient heals and the cleric, even with SCM3 and max alteration spec, is going to go OOM fast.

Possible? Yes. Efficient or desirable? No. Basically it means that in an emergency situation a cleric has better odds of pulling a group through a bad situation than a druid does. Such is the benefit of being a healing specialist.

In 65 levels and 42 AA do you know how many times I ran into that (emergency) situation? None. In that same time do you know how many times I was not grouped with a slower? A few times. In those times I was paired with either another cleric or a druid and we traded off healing detail because alone neither one of us could handle it.

Druids are perfectly capable healers for teir1-3xp groups once they get their first iCH. Post-60 healing spells make the job easier and if paired with a slower there really isn't a problem. This is not a problem with a lack of druid ability, this is a player perception/habit issue with people not believing druids can make good primary healers.

Okie, I have to comment on the druids as healers tier three. I spent my weekend in BoT this past weekend and over the course of the weekend I got 8 AA's in about 11-12 hours of play. *sounds death knell on his soloing days* I actually enjoy soloing, but with the changes is much less efficient. And I have tried the lfg tool and sat for long stretches a few times looking for group. Best bet is to find one or more people you know who wanna exp and start your own. Then pick up other lfg people.

So this weekend, the cleric in my guild who I hang out with all the time decided she wanted to hit 65 and I hadn't really exped much since the change. So we saddled up and headed to BoT. We picked key classes we needed form lfgers and people on the looking for group tool. We went through several incarnations. It always seemed better with a Paladin or Shadowknight tanking. I was harmony pulling first the west wing then moved to the south. For mana usage and people in groups sanity I highly suggest a slower for tier three. It isn't the always the damage output but the way it spurts from unslowed mobs as the tank mitigates that makes it hard to always judge heals correctly. We were in the middle of a long session and cleric had to go take her kids to dinner. Gone about an hour and a half. At this time the group consisted of a Enc, Pal, War, Bard and me. All of us 65. We were all doing fine and friendly, and cleric was a friend of al of ours so we wanted to keep her spot for when she got back so she could get 65, so we decided to not invite another. Group asked if I would still be ok to pull and be main healer. I said I thought so and we would give it a try. It was fine. No glitches for entire time. I pulled, was main healer and still added near the same DPS I had before. There was very little if any slowdown. Only time it even got dicey was when harmony was resisted and we got two adds. so I ran back to group and hit exodus button. Mobs went back home and we came back and got set up again. I can tell you the people in that group saw the value of a druid.

Druids can be excellent in a group and fill next to any role. Sure we aren't the best healer. We aren't the best nuker. We may not even always be the best puller. But it is our ability to fill multiple roles that really makes the groups we are in more efficient. Big problem is most people don't see it that way and lack of rez means they want a cleric first. My suggestion is get one other person you like to consistently group with and start the groups yerself.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Thanks I've read your posts, and by *reading* them so many are anti-druid whenever something postive has been posted about the class. [/quote]

If you read my posts as well as the one earlier in this thread, which you completely misinterpreted, it's no wonder you have such a sour view of my posts.

I've advocated improvements to the druid class and replied to concerns others have had, and I've put a lot of thought and reasoning into each of my posts. When someone disputes that a problem exists just because the problem doesn't affect <em>them</em>, I do my best to look at it from other perspectives.

You think druids are b.a.l.a.n.c.e.d, well good. You have a lot of "anti druid" people just like me to thank. We don't just look at one particular niche at the high-end and declare druids the perfectly-balanced class for all time.

Balance, in case you haven't noticed in the past four years, is an ongoing process -- and it always will be. If the people who play a class regularly don't speak up and offer suggestions for improvements, we end up with poorly balanced spells. If we don't try to include the full spectrum of playstyles, we end up with a game that favors one or two.

As for saying that someone is trolling, sure I have. I've participated on BBS and message boards for over ten years. When someone posts cheap jabs and one-liners for the elicit purpose of inciting or flaming, that's called <strong>trolling</strong>. It has nothing to do with whether they happen to be arguing a point with which I agree or disagree.

Graal quoted several lines of another person's post and 'called bull****' (inflammatory at best), but didn't even give a reason why he thought the quoted text was wrong or bad. That's trolling. He implied that any druid who can't find a group after hours of trying must be incompetent. That's trolling.

I'm not trying to pick on Graal, simply explaining why I or anyone else could have seen that one particular post as trollish. He has presented differing viewpoints many other times on these boards without baiting people and without attempting to incite anger. I appreciate it when players of other classes offer their own perspectives on druid issues/ideas here, but I'll admit it peeves me when they try to start a riot without explaining their points.

Wicked, I probably can't change the way you comprehend my perspectives, but my suggestion is for you to calm down and realize that people who discuss issues and concerns they have for the druid class are not necessarily 'anti-druid' and they're not such gluttons for punishment that they'd have played this class for 3-4 years if they didn't like it.

~Firemynd

Ah screw it. Ezboard wants to eat the message everytime I use the back button now and it's a pain in the butt to requote stuff so bleh.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I hate to break it to you but a lot of the very top level druids I speak to are very happy with where their class is at the moment and they thing druids are a very powerful class.[/quote]

Should a druid with 5k+ mana and FT15 be the standard for grouping druids? I think not. Luckily I have options of getting a guild group in the elementals, because if I was a more casual player, I'd feel this burn as well. Don't be unfair and point out the top end druids, as gear, AA's, and levels make a hell of alot of difference.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Graal quoted several lines of another person's post and 'called bull****' (inflammatory at best), but didn't even give a reason why he thought the quoted text was wrong or bad. That's trolling. He implied that any druid who can't find a group after hours of trying must be incompetent. That's trolling. [/quote]

No it's not. I called bull**** because it WAS bull****. I gave very specific reasons why I thought so too. The poster said that he consistently spent about 4 hours LFG before finding a group, and of course attributed that to being a druid. It is very possible to go 4 hours without finding a group, but to <em>consistently</em> go that long before finding a group? Rogues didn't consistently spend 4 hours LFG <em>before the introduction of evade</em> and rogues at the time were the most broken class in the history of the game. As somone who played a paladin <em>during Kunark</em>, I can assure you that 4 hours consistently LFG is either a gross exaggeration, the person in question simply doesn't advertise that he is LFG and hopes random people send him tells out of the blue, or he in fact has a reputation as a moron. Most likely he is being disingenous and exaggerating. Either way: bull****.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I'm not trying to pick on Graal, simply explaining why I or anyone else could have seen that one particular post as trollish. He has presented differing viewpoints many other times on these boards without baiting people and without attempting to incite anger. I appreciate it when players of other classes offer their own perspectives on druid issues/ideas here, but I'll admit it peeves me when they try to start a riot without explaining their points.[/quote]

I thought I explained my points relatively well. The guy was horribly exaggerating. Or a moron. Take your pick.

Graal...
And you KNOW for a fact the guy was lieing? or he is a moron? or he is exagerrating? ... You are so wise oh Paladin who knows the druid class and its plights.
I guess the dozens of posts I have seen on this board about druids having trouble getting groups, spendings HOURS looking, makes them all lieing exagerrating morons Graal?
Just for your info I have spent hours in the LFG mode many times, and guess what Graal, I am not an exagerrating lieing moron. And I have a very good standing on my server. So yes... your statements do fit the Trolling class. Not the first time, probably not the last.

Selldor

I consider myself an exceptional druid, I like to believe all the people that know me in game think the same. I am in a guild that is working into PoTime. My gear is not exceptional(its getting there slowly), but i have always thought skill can make up for gear. It is not (exaggerating. Or a moron.) that makes a druid sit lfg for hours on end on a consistant basis. If it were not for my guild i would have the same issues, i have spent hours lfg, advertising, and with the lfg tool doing its thing. The simple fact of the matter is druids are not as group desireable as other class's for reasons that have been repeated over and over on this board.

I appreciate other class's coming to TDG and voicing their opinions, stating their ideas about the druid class as a whole, but To come here playing another class, and pretend you understand anything a druid goes threw while lfg is nothing less than feeble attempt to cover what is esentially a trolling post.

"If you read my posts as well as the one earlier in this thread, which you completely misinterpreted, it's no wonder you have such a sour view of my posts."

Thanks, I've read them. I've been a member on this board for over 3 years and I've seen plenty of them to know where you're coming from. Maybe you should learn to _read_ your own posts before hitting that reply button, it might work wonders.

"I've advocated improvements to the druid class and replied to concerns others have had, and I've put a lot of thought and reasoning into each of my posts. When someone disputes that a problem exists just because the problem doesn't affect them, I do my best to look at it from other perspectives."

Odd, look at your response when Graal talks about his perspective of getting a primary healer:
"No, we weren't really talking about YOU. This discussion had nothing to do with YOU until YOU posted YOUR opinion. And to that, I respond with the same things I already said to YOU"

Wow, its a board, he has an opinion, god forbid he doesn't support you view, SHUT HIM UP QUICK BEFORE SOMEONE NOTICES! You sure don't practice what you preach, the word that comes to mind imo is hypocryte.
Trolling, selective quoting or just plain old twisting. God forbid there is a difference of opinion. Its even more funny when someone calls a bluff and your hand sucks. Let the proof speak for itself:

"You think druids are b.a.l.a.n.c.e.d, well good. You have a lot of "anti druid" people just like me to thank. We don't just look at one particular niche at the high-end and declare druids the perfectly-balanced class for all time."

Wow we have another person like Broomhilda here trying to take credit for druids getting an improvement. Hate to stop you from patting yourself on the back, but you're not the be all end all when this class gets improvements nor are you in any way a determining factor as far as what SOE has done. Please show us an improvement with your name stamped on it. As far as your comments, did I say anything about druids being balanced only at one particular niche at the high end game? Please quote where I've said this because I didn't. Thats you doing some nice twisting. @#%$ to my comment about actually reading before hitting that reply button and how some people twist words.

"As for saying that someone is trolling, sure I have. I've participated on BBS and message boards for over ten years. When someone posts cheap jabs and one-liners for the elicit purpose of inciting or flaming, that's called trolling. It has nothing to do with whether they happen to be arguing a point with which I agree or disagree."

Wow 10 years of participation on message boards. Does that make you an expert ? Cheap jabs? Inciting or flaming ?

Wow look at this little gem I came across:
pub149.ezboard.com/fthedr...=156.topic (http://pub149.ezboard.com/fthedruidsgrovefrm18.showMessage?topicID=156.topic )

I think this is self explanatory, gee look at the name involved in that post. A little angry there that someone you feel is highly influential in this game isn't 'whoring' themselves out for your cause. Classic.

"Graal quoted several lines of another person's post and 'called bull****' (inflammatory at best), but didn't even give a reason why he thought the quoted text was wrong or bad. That's trolling. He implied that any druid who can't find a group after hours of trying must be incompetent. That's trolling."

For the audience out there, I quote you Graal's text:

"I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to call bull**** on this.

If it takes you 4 hours out of a 6 hour play time to find a group, try turning on LFG and/or remember to evac instead of gate the next time the group is whiping out.

It's not any harder for a druid to build a group than any other class.

Actually druids are the ESSENTIALS for a group. A group needs a tank, a slower, and a healer. As a tank, I generally want a healer. I don't really care if it is a cleric or druid, I prefer either over having a second shaman in the group for healing. There are many times I prefer a druid healer over a cleric.

Get off the "woah is me" kick. "

Obviously we have selective reading at work here again. Obviously Graal never gave a reason for things in his text! Once again, I think it would be useful if you refered to the points about reading before hitting that reply button and twisting words, and trolling.

"I'm not trying to pick on Graal, simply explaining why I or anyone else could have seen that one particular post as trollish. He has presented differing viewpoints many other times on these boards without baiting people and without attempting to incite anger. I appreciate it when players of other classes offer their own perspectives on druid issues/ideas here, but I'll admit it peeves me when they try to start a riot without explaining their points."

Thats odd, I don't think you're picking on Graal, you're just being a boob about it and you proved you haven't read the post.

"Wicked, I probably can't change the way you comprehend my perspectives, but my suggestion is for you to calm down and realize that people who discuss issues and concerns they have for the druid class are not necessarily 'anti-druid' and they're not such gluttons for punishment that they'd have played this class for 3-4 years if they didn't like it."

Cool, I don't want to comprehend your perspective and I'm sure that other posters in this thread who have different viewpoints don't care to either. You can't even follow your own advice that you preach, you contradict yourself, your viewpoints are so narrow that theres no point in wasting time in discussing things with people like you.

Now if I could only figure out how to get back the 10 minutes I wasted replying to this garbage.

~Wicked
Druid Bitch since '99 and proud to be one.

Facts we knew about single player power gamers before the recent charm nerf and group exp change.

1. Charming classes like druid, enchanter and necro were making more exp than groups often. Hence the 200 AAs to 300s AA - druids, necros and enchanters compared to the grouped warrior only with 100 AAs.

2. Quading with KEI often allowed Druids and wizards to keep up with the exp of a group if not better.

3. Root rotting a very controlled, very little risk and relaxing way to gain exp for both Druids and necros.

Many Druids looking for exp will attest that soloing via Charming or Quading reared much better exp than groups.

I.E. Soloing exp COULD EASILY be better exp than a group. (search your heart and you will see this was not very fair)

----------------------------------------------------
After recent patches

1. Charm exp and duration and resists all changed. Both adds more risk and less exp. But a 'Single' charming class STILL manages to hold the ability to hold an entire camp this way and keep up with the spawns as a group would.

2. Exp Bonus is increased to group. While Exp for soloist is slightly decreased.

3. More mobs are offered to level 65 soloist to kill. Even to the point that old world zone now began to hold light blue such as the Fay dark brownie camp (lvl 45 mobs) furthermore, some old world zones now had 'blue' mobs such as in sol b, the hole, kedge keep, lower guk, etc. (Some of these old zones with a 20%-15%-10% exp bonus modifier, with mobs that hit for very little damage, with mobs that have less hp, and can be killed in bulk.)

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

***I believe that exp between soloists and groups is finally balanced. If this is not enough many classes are 'still' forced to group such as the rogue who 'still' sitd LFG for hours while a soloist class can go solo if they wish at anytime waiting out the time they may be LFG.

1. Can you honestly sit back and say it was better and fair the way it was before the exp patches?

2. Was it fair that charm soloing gave so much exp and was it fair that quading soloing gave so much exp compared to traditional melee/healer/caster traditional 6 person group?

3. And Yes, there still exists a fairly low risk methods for soloist classes to solo compared to the way other group dependant class such as the rogue would try to solo. There are far easier methods soloing offer to soloist classes such as root rotting and aggro snared kiting.

P.S. My aim was to show that heavily soloists classes (necro, enchanter, druid etc) do not need compensation. This post does not serve to attack druids only and is a direct discussion of the topic and title of this thread. I forced to make this P.S. since the word 'troll' is being thrown around so loosely without the true understand of the pronoun.

The Truth

"I forced to make this P.S. since the word 'troll' is being thrown around so loosely without the true understand of the pronoun."

Sorry it is late... I ment to say.

I am forced to make this P.S. since the word 'troll' is being thrown around so loosely without the true understanding of the pronoun.

(I too am having trouble with edit and back button on the browser hm...)

The points you made, The Truth, are very wide ranging and are true for druids at levels 20 to 60. The game takes on a drastic change when you take a druid above level 60. In a way, you have to be a druid of those levels to understand this. So.. as to how your comments apply to a level 60-65 druid (Hierophant) in PoP zones, I'm not certain there is any applicability.

"Charming classes like druid, enchanter and necro were making more exp than groups often. Hence the 200 AAs to 300s AA - druids, necros and enchanters compared to the grouped warrior only with 100 AAs."

Mainly true for enchanters, however I'ld like to point out that the risks of charm soloing has always been greater than grouping. I'm not certain about necros since I don't play one. For druids, old world animals in the Karanas are good xp for low-teens, velious is very good for mid-teens and Luclin for 45-60 range. However your statement is totally off base for a Hierophant because except for that 8 hotly contested frogs in PoS charm soloing in other PoP zones actually give less xp than grouping. Even the xp given by these 8 frogs have been nerfed to the point where an average group can get slightly better xp than a Hierophant charm soloing them.


"Quading with KEI often allowed Druids and wizards to keep up with the exp of a group if not better."

Again, it is true for most old world, kunark, velious and luclin zones. When it comes to PoP zones, most Hierophants find barely enough mana to nuke down a single yard trash, much less quad. While wizards may be able to continue quadding in pop zones as per usual, quadding as a source of xp in PoP is a myth for Hierophants.


"Root rotting a very controlled, very little risk and relaxing way to gain exp for both Druids and necros."

Very safe indeed, especially for old world, kunark and velious zones. Not so true for Luclin and PoP zones because most mobs in these two expansions have tonnes of hp which brings me to the next point. One aspect of root rotting that you convienently missed out is that for Luclin and PoP mobs, it takes 7 to 10 mins to root rot one mob to death. In that time any average group can easily triple or quadriple the amount of xp a Hierophant get from root rotting a mob in PoP. Oh did I mention its extremely boring too?


"Many Druids looking for exp will attest that soloing via Charming or Quading reared much better exp than groups. I.E. Soloing exp COULD EASILY be better exp than a group. (search your heart and you will see this was not very fair)"

I attest that as a Druid, charming and quadding does give xp on par with grouping. I can also attest that as a Hierophant that prenerf charming could be good xp if those 8 frogs aren't contested. I can also attest that Hierophants can't quad any mob for xp. This question of fairness shouldn't be directed at Hierophants since we've shifted to your side of the fence, hence the birth of this thread.

One thing that most other class do not understand is that with the advent of PoP, the class name change from Druid to Hierophant is a very significant change indeed. We've changed from a soloable class to a mostly non-soloable class.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
Actually druids are the ESSENTIALS for a group.
[/quote]
No. That's ridiculous to the point of mental trauma. HEALING is essential. That doesn't make Druids essential. DPS is essential. That doesn't make Rogues essential.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
A group needs a tank, a slower, and a healer. As a tank, I generally want a healer. I don't really care if it is a cleric or druid, I prefer either over having a second shaman in the group for healing. There are many times I prefer a druid healer over a cleric.
[/quote]
This may be the hundredth time I've seen a tank post this on a message board. Frankly, most of the time I dismiss it as trash talk. People post it because it helps make a point, not because it's necessarily true.

I have never, ever gotten a healer spot when a Cleric was looking, nor do I ever expect to. It common for me to get a group invite, then wait 10 minutes while they look for a Cleric. I regard it as normal business.

If you read the message boards, there's this HUGE contingent of tanks who have zero problem with a Druid MH, and in fact many claim to prefer it. I know damn well none of them are tellng their groups " hey there's a druid and cleric lfg...get the druid!". It just isn't happening.

Message board arguments are different from what goes on in the game.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
I know damn well none of them are tellng their groups " hey there's a druid and cleric lfg...get the druid!". It just isn't happening.
[/quote]

I don't know about that, but I do know I have kicked a level cleric 65 from a group (as main healer in a 2nd tier zone) and replaced them with a level 60 druid, because the druid could do the job and the cleric couldn't.

At the moment, in a standard healer/slower/tank/dpsx3 group, druids are 2nd choice for 1 group slot and 6th or so choices for 3 others. Compare that to say warriors, who are 3rd choice for one slot and 8th choice for the three DPS slots.

Soru

Well that's a matter of playing skill Kaledan. Of course there are going to be times when that happens, but all things being the same clerics will get a group over druids in 9 out of 10 cases.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You are so wise oh Paladin who knows the druid class and its plights.[/quote]

Thank you. I'm glad we understand each other. ;)

BTW, just saw a quote that I thought was apropo. "Funny thing about groups, they want me when they need someone... not when it's convenient for me!"

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
I don't know about that, but I do know I have kicked a level cleric 65 from a group (as main healer in a 2nd tier zone) and replaced them with a level 60 druid, because the druid could do the job and the cleric couldn't.
[/quote]
I'm sure you did. But it takes a level 60 Druid 10 seconds to heal as much as a level 65 Cleric can heal in <em>3.5</em>. Before the 60 Druid can finish casting Chloroblast, the Cleric has cast a 1400ish quick heal. The Cleric has higher innate mana regen, and presumably more AA's, and the AA's are probably more healing focused.

That 65 Cleric was so bad he could be replaced by a healer that had a quarter of his power. That's...embarassing, and I assure you all Clerics aren't so unskilled. It's an good anecdote for a message board, but no doubt far removed from any actual trend.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
At the moment, in a standard healer/slower/tank/dpsx3 group, druids are 2nd choice for 1 group slot and 6th or so choices for 3 others. Compare that to say warriors, who are 3rd choice for one slot and 8th choice for the three DPS slots.
[/quote]
Warriors are in a bad spot right now, I agree wholeheartedly. They really have to get something to bring to exp groups.

It's nice to be a healer (it really is), but the current game design has engendered an unusual competition for that spot. We're the 2nd choice, but we are a dominated second. We will be picked when all the Clerics have groups. This is different from the DPS competition. A Necro might be 2nd DPS choice after a Rogue, but some Necros will be picked before Rogues. Some BSTs will be picked before Necros. There is more parity in the choices.

Personally, I think it's fair we should be picked only when the Clerics have groups. They specialize in healing, and have no other exp options. I'm sure others will disagree, that is just my opinion.

It's a bizarre design, though.

Who picks a necro for DPS reasons? A necro would be down at the bottom of my list when it comes to DPS.

Then you don't know much about necros.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I have kicked a level cleric 65 from a group (as main healer in a 2nd tier zone) and replaced them with a level 60 druid, because the druid could do the job and the cleric couldn't.[/quote]

Ok everyone click off the Virtues for Cabbage. <group cheers>

I'm assuming the group had a shammy who carried the day.

Edit: Wicked, your main is not a druid. Please stop pretending otherwise.

"Edit: Wicked, your main is not a druid. Please stop pretending otherwise."

Wow Demasia is that the best you can come up with? Why look, you've only registered in March of 2003! I'm pretty certain I've played longer than you with my druid, have raided more content than you, have raided zones you'll probably never enter and have more in game knowledge than you. You must be seriously lacking in the brain cell department. But hey with those few braincells you have I give you credit for mustering a sentence together.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Wow Demasia is that the best you can come up with? Why look, you've only registered in March of 2003! I'm pretty certain I've played longer than you with my druid, have raided more content than you, have raided zones you'll probably never enter and have more in game knowledge than you. You must be seriously lacking in the brain cell department. But hey with those few braincells you have I give you credit for mustering a sentence together. [/quote]

That is just another example of the flaming jibberish you've posted here, Wicked.

You've contributed absolutely nothing to the content of this thread, and I'm not going to feed your trolling by replying to any more of the nonsense which have filled your last two posts. Suffice to say, the comments you've made about me are laughable and out of context, as is the desperation of digging up a 6-month old post which was resolved quite amiably by myself and the other party involved, in a different thread which you obviously overlooked -- not that anyone is surprised that you ignore anything that doesn't support your dimented view.

You would do well to emulate Lotus instead of feigning belated defense on her behalf. Rest assured, everyone else on the planet has moved onward except you.

~Firemynd

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Wow Demasia is that the best you can come up with? Why look, you've only registered in March of 2003! I'm pretty certain I've played longer than you with my druid, have raided more content than you, have raided zones you'll probably never enter and have more in game knowledge than you. You must be seriously lacking in the brain cell department.[/quote]

My druid is Aawulf on Bristlebane and was created in March or April of 1999 and is among oldest druid mains on that server with several hundred days played. I'm sure there are folks from Bristlebane who can confirm my information here. Ante up Wicked.

I created this account because of a lost password resulting from a computer theft.

Clerics don't have better intrinsic mana regen than druids do. The self-buff of Blessed Armor of the Risen includes a 6 mana per tick regen thats comparable to Cababge I believe, although Cabbage is overwritten by Aego/Virtue and BAoR isn't. Armor of the Zealot has mana regen on par with Nine, although again Zealot stacks with Aego/Virtue and Nine doesn't. So if by better mana regen you meant stacking issues, I'll accept that, but otherwise it just isn't so.

Now, if you want to talk about clerics getting fist dibs on FT gear, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish! ;)

On the subject of DPS classes, anyone who thinks necromancers aren't good DPS is clearly ignorant of what a necromancer can do, especially with the powerful short-duration DoTs they get post-60! Not a DPS class indeed! LOL!

I can believe there are clerics that would get passed over for a druid healer, I've run into a couple of candidates for that in both classes (moron cleric, good druid.) Speaking as a melee class, I'm not so much worried about rez (its nice when I can get it, don't get me wrong) as I want to feel confident that my group's healer is paying attention and doing their job so I can live to do mine.

I've also made it a point lately in groups to ask people why they do or do not want a specific druid in their group, primarily based on accusations here that druids lack grouping desirability. In every case where I asked "why don't we get druid_x for our group" and the response has been "no" the reason has been that the specific druid in question has established a reputation for being a tool.

I concede that this is anecdotal, and therefore not scientific or necessarily accurate. But the sentiment among players on Stromm is that a well-played druid rocks in groups and is quite well desired.

I play a necro Graal and I know enough about them that I wouldn't choose them for DPS.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
Clerics don't have better intrinsic mana regen than druids do.
[/quote]
Oh, I didn't intend to imply that Clerics have more mana regen than same-level Druids. A level <em>65 Cleric</em> has more mana regen than a <em>level 60</em> Druid.

The 65 Cleric has Armor of the Zealot = 8 mana/tic, and Yaulp VI = 12 mana/tic. The best a 60 Druid could do is 6 mana/tic from Cabbage and 2/tic from wolfform (although he'd probably use a horse instead).

I'm not sure why Necros are so underrated as a DPS class. I was grouped with a 61 necro that was nuking for 1250+, using Neurotoxin I assume. With a mage bracer, NT will hit for up to 1560 points. That's before the pet and the DOTS.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
I can believe there are clerics that would get passed over for a druid healer, I've run into a couple of candidates for that in both classes (moron cleric, good druid.)
[/quote]
Yes, that's true. Reputation is inarguably a huge factor. Some shaman told me I was the "best cleric he'd had all week". And I was on the Druid =).

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
In every case where I asked "why don't we get druid_x for our group" and the response has been "no" the reason has been that the specific druid in question has established a reputation for being a tool.
[/quote]
That's certainly food for thought. If druid_01 KS's you in Rathe Mtns, you're going to remember it.

It's also possible that the "tool" label is applied a bit liberally. I've been MH when someone died, and in every case the group broke up (pickup groups), someone left, or we decided to wait for a Cleric. I've been on my Cleric when someone died, and we (usually) drag, rez, and keep on booking. The Cleric is a better healer than the Druid, and sometimes people confuse that with being a better player.

However, I am guessing. Your interpretation is certainly a valid one.

As a point of order, a 65 cleric does not automatically get Armor of the Zealot and YaulpVI. At 65, in a guild raiding teir3 PoP, I had Hand of Virtue from a lucky rune turn in from a single-group takedown of a BoT mini... While its fair to say a 65 cleric has better potential mana regen, its far from automatic.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The 65 Cleric has Armor of the Zealot = 8 mana/tic, and Yaulp VI = 12 mana/tic. The best a 60 Druid could do is 6 mana/tic from Cabbage and 2/tic from wolfform (although he'd probably use a horse instead).[/quote]

This isn't completely accurate, as the druid may very well have Mask of the Stalker/Hunter which adds an additional 3 mana per tick.

SO, self-buffed 60 Druid:

PotC(6), MatS(3), Horse(close to FT7 from what I've read)

"That is just another example of the flaming jibberish you've posted here, Wicked.

You've contributed absolutely nothing to the content of this thread, and I'm not going to feed your trolling by replying to any more of the nonsense which have filled your last two posts. Suffice to say, the comments you've made about me are laughable and out of context, as is the desperation of digging up a 6-month old post which was resolved quite amiably by myself and the other party involved, in a different thread which you obviously overlooked -- not that anyone is surprised that you ignore anything that doesn't support your dimented view."

Lol! You have some nice reading and comprehension skills. I guess my discussing on exp balancing and druid desirability went way over your head; skipped of course, because it doesn't support your view. Of course you have _YET_ to dismiss a single point, just easy to call something a troll and walk out with your tall behind your legs. After all, lets not look at the facts! Just look how you handled Graal's points, you totally missed every sentence in his post which I conviently put in my post before this to remind you. You might sell snow to some eskimos, but you won't sell it to all of them.

Oh and 'out of desperation' to 'dig' up that nice post took all of 30 seconds. Doesn't it kinda suck to preach someone to someone then they show you don't practice what you preach ? I think a better sign of desperation is someone who doesn't agree with someone and uses any mean to dismiss it. You know, you dismiss it because they aren't 'honest' or 'must be trolling', those quoted words from guess who btw.

"You would do well to emulate Lotus instead of feigning belated defense on her behalf. Rest assured, everyone else on the planet has moved onward except you."

Who's defending Lotus and remind me why I care ?

I will give you credit for one thing, you definately put the Iraqi information minister to shame.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I play a necro Graal and I know enough about them that I wouldn't choose them for DPS.[/quote]

I would posit that you don't play a necro very well then. Blood of Thule <em>by itself</em> is 55 DPS and <em>just</em> the mana regen from seduction of saryn is enough to let you cast BoT once every minute without any net loss in mana.

That's the last defensive point of ignorance Graal, to attack someone's playing skill. I do know how to play a necro but I didn't say that necro was really high level. 55 DPS isn't that great, certainly can't compare to a rogue or wizard. You're the one that needs to play(or learn to play) a class before you comment about it...like druids for example.

His point, and its valid, is that a necromancer can combine a few nasty dots and their pet to be some pretty reasonable and respectable DPS in a group. They can maintain DPS comparable to a tank forever with no downtime, and not including their pet (additional DPS) and not including the fact that they can burn harder than a mage or wizard and recover faster.

People who believe necromancers are not good DPS are either ignorant of the class in the high end, or simply have not been around ones that weren't E-Bayed ;)

They aren't good DPS when compared to a lot of other classes. His point isn't really valid in my view because it's not an issue of whether or not a necro can DPS(every class can). It was a matter of whether they can add good DPS and/or good enough to warrant taking them over a class like a rogue or wizard, who are known for their DPS, and in that case the answer would be no as far as I'm concerned.

***"They aren't good DPS when compared to a lot of other classes. His point isn't really valid in my view because it's not an issue of whether or not a necro can DPS(every class can). It was a matter of whether they can add good DPS and/or good enough to warrant taking them over a class like a rogue or wizard, who are known for their DPS, and in that case the answer would be no as far as I'm concerned."***

Wizard is known for burst damage and is not a good damage over time class for a exp group compared to a necro.

Rogues are suffering don't believe me check out The Safehouse. A Rogue is probably on par with the Damage over time a necro generates.

A druid with a charmed pet is absolutely amazing contribution of damage over time to a group. Thats not even going into Rain and Crit damage.

I am hearing too many woes from druids that have it pretty good.

The Truth

Damage over time = DoT, and yeah necros are better at it than just about anyone. But were not talking about DoT damage, we're talking about straight up across the board DPS and as good as necro ones are they still aren't adding the DPS with their DoT's that other classes can.

funny thing about cleric vs druid


I have both a 65 cleric and 65 druid

I rarely play my cleric :P

And in the last 3 months when I log on my cleric shortly to move stuff around or to rez a guildmate etc

I have gotten 10 random tells , from different peeps in different zones , Wanna join us in soandso zone ?

In all my time when I was playing my druid as main before I switched to Rogue main last year in Dec, I've never gotten a single tell to join a random group anywhere (except from guildies)

I just find this fact fascinating

Transfer DoTs---dots that add to group health and mana. Pets. ONE DoT that adds 55DPS without significantly burning inordinate amounts of mana. Undead charms. A boost from the DoT affliction change (making the DoT last longer when the fight doesnt last to its end is a boost guys). Lower yield nuking, true, but the steady DPS per mob will be a greater yeild than that of a wizard with similar AAs and gear. It will be close to that of a mage. It will be better than any tanking class and equal to or greater than that of rogues, monks and rangers---its completely situation dependent.

Necros are all about damage.
Why is this even a topic of discussion really? I didnt think it was a question that Necros were an acceptable and in a lot of cases flexible DPS class?


Belkram Marrwolf

"Why is this even a topic of discussion really?"

Anyone who has played the game knows that Necros deal serious DPS. At all levels.

It just does not happen in a big hurry. Think back when you were doing Exe trials. All "DPS, DPS, DPS". Who were the last you thought of to get into your group? Only because the mobs had to die in 30 secs.

I think that had something to do with the misstatement that sparked the discussion.

they actually came right out and stated it was going to have this effect, and they implied that any soloing nerf can be justified by simply claiming, "after all, this is a multiplayer grouping game."


It is exactly this attitude of SOE's that sucks and destroys a great game. This is a multiplayer game - a MMORPG. Nowhere in the title MMORPG is there any reference to grouping. You can (and should) have the option to play a MMORPG solo. UO is totally a solo game, DAoC is priomarily a solo game. AO is primarily a solo game. Star Wars Galaxies sucks but it is priomarily a solo game adn it is made by SOE. :-) Go figure.

Yeah well it depends on what were talking about here, and I thought it was grouping(in fact I'm sure it was) and in those cases necros lose out because experience group fights are short ones for the most part. If you're talking about a boss mob then it's different, but in an experience group I want fast DPS, not dots.

So because a necro and his pet produces more Damage over time ultimately offering more damage to each individual mob the experience group takes. And that necro has an incredible mana regen boot due to their lich series of spells.

You would still choose a wizard over a necro as a DPS class for "an experience group?"

The Truth