View Full Forums : Time to start a Nuke Discussion


Scirocco
07-25-2002, 08:24 AM
We've been focusing on healing changes for a while now, so perhaps it's time to shift focus to nuking for a bit. Remember, we druids are largely split into two camps, as shown by the poll on specialization: healing druids and nuking druids. And all the discussions on healing changes have confirmed that. As with healing, any discussion of improvements in one area have to keep in mind that there also are needed improvments in the other.

Potential areas of improvements are fairly simple:
1. AA skills re crits.
2. More powerful nukes.
3. Manaburn.

Let's look at manaburn first. Frankly, I don't want to ask for any form of it. It is a toy to play with certain old world mobs if you have sufficient wizards to do a one-shot kill. Any druid manaburn would have to be lower than the wizards, and would compound the problem of these one-shot kills (making it easier to get sufficient people to do the one-shot kill). It has no real role in an XP group or raid, especially when we have other uses for our mana (buffing, debuffing, healing, DoTs, nuking). I also don't believe it's necessary in light of my nuke improvment suggestions below.

Second, let's look at our AA skills re criting. We get Spell Casting Fury, just like the wizards, but we don't get Spell Casting Fury Mastery, which increases the chance to do crits. Instead, we get Spell Casting Reinforcement Mastery. Since our buffing role is fairly minor, even on raids, I think we ought to have SCFM over SCRM. Make it cost an AA point more for druids than wizards, I don't care, I just want to option to get it (and I think I speak for nuking druids everywhere!)

Third, instead of proposing some specific higher damage nukes, let's get more ambitious for BOTH wizards and druids, and think further down the road with PoP in mind.

One of the ideas that has come up with regard to spell power in druid discussions is the idea of scaleability. CH increases in power as the tank's HPs increases. Slow increases in power as the mob's unslowed DPS increases. And in the context of healing, the idea of percentage heals has been discussed.

Let's push for percentage nukes for both classes, with the druid percentage nuke being about 2/3 whatever percentage the wizard does. That way our nuking power grows with the HPs of the mobs in question, and druid nuking power stays at about 2/3 of wizards, which is where we have been for most of our lives. Have all AA skills and focus items affect the percentage nukes as well.

Believe me, I would be pushing for a wizard nuke percentage as high as possible, since mine would follow right along with it...:)

Tantris Stormbringer
07-25-2002, 08:32 AM
You know, Scirocco used to not be quite this serious all the time.... did you? If I recall your a lawer, guess thats it :-)

Anyhow I agree 100%! we should have a 2/3 nuke... though arent our dots supposed to make up for weaker nuking?

Sorrun
07-25-2002, 08:46 AM
I think percentage based anything is the way to go for future spells because it allows very easy scaling later on to adjust for game play tactics or issues Verant was unable to think of or catch in thier testing.

Percentage based DD spells would make it very easy to balance classes also which is the discussion of the month on just about any board you visit whether it is 2/3 power or whatever.

Scirocco
07-25-2002, 08:48 AM
And with these changes we would still have weaker nuking. Keep in mind that I have also proposed an increase in our DoT power that would restore more of the balance in that line. We still would have weaker nuking, weaker healing, and weaker DoTs than the best in those areas, but not so weak as to be crippling.

Remember the overall balance where we are about two-thirds to three-quarters of the relative power of the top classes in these "major" lines. It is equally valid to say that we ought to have these improvements to continue to make up for our weaknesses in our other lines.

My thesis has been that the druid balance has been out of whack for high level druids because our relative power positions in our three main lines has dropped in ALL THREE LINES. Moreover, our relative power positions in other lines has dropped as well (or, to be more accurate, the importance of those lines as decreased). And we have had no increases in relative power to compensate these across-the-board reductions.

What I am proposing here is simply to bring druids back into the same relative power position vis-a-vis wizards. These changes would not step on wizards' toes anymore than our nuking power has stepped on wizards' toes since level 1.

Broomhilda
07-25-2002, 08:52 AM
"Druids also should have the option to buy quick Direct Damage. Definitely a skill aimed at nukers."


Dont we have 'fast cast' though? I'm not sure if that applies to nukes or not.

To be honest, i think our nukes are fine as is. I wouldnt mind improvements, but i'm very impressed with SCF3. When i had SCF1 and 2 it seemed like i just wasnt crit'ing enough to the point it was that great. Since i got SCF3 i've been happy with going this route instead of SCM. Maybe i've just been getting lucky, but i crit alot more now than i ever have. The difference so far has been more than i expected.

Despite that, i agree in regards to scaleability. If for anything, to know where we should expect to be in terms of overall nuking ability. So when that next expansion comes out, and everyone else but Druids gets a bump up because we already got one previous to the expansion, i'd like to know when we're not scaling at a point we 'should' be at. So to know we're supposed to be 2/3's of a Wizzies nukes(hypothetically), and thats what Verant intended, we know we're broken. Right now, we have no idea where we're supposed to be in terms of scalability and Verant seems to make it up as they go. I dont think they take are <50 lvls as the model to us at >50.

Also, you should note that our aggro plays a big factor in just how much we can nuke. Thats a big advantage Wizzies have in aggro reducing spells.

Cassea
07-25-2002, 08:53 AM
I think we are fine Nuke-wise if they allowed Druids to actually obtain Moonfire.

High level druids Nuke and Heal.

Clearly we nuke much better than we heal which is why I push for an expansion proof "percentage" heal.

Already there is a thread on the Wizards board pointing out that without taking AA skills into play we are darn close to their nuking ability.

If we keep asking for too much we'll lose all credibility with Verant IMHO.

Are we presently the 2nd best Nukers in the game under "average" circumstances? If yes then we may be asking for too much.

Like I said - Maybe ask them to up the drops for Moonfire.

Scirocco
07-25-2002, 09:03 AM
Already there is a thread on the Wizards board pointing out that without taking AA skills into play we are darn close to their nuking ability.

But when you take AA skills into account, as well as the base crit that wizards get, we aren't "darn close" to wizards' nuking ability any longer. And that's only if you consider 2/3 of the wizard nuking ability to be "darn close."

Consider the logic. Prior to taking AA skills into account, the nuking ability of wizards and druids is in balance. Wizards get three AA skills re improving their nuking (not counting manaburn), while druids only get one (and not the two higher level AA skills at that).

Thus, giving druids the two missing AA skills will restore that balance, correct?


This balance is also why I propose a percentage nuke for both wizards and druids. Wizards get one, druids get one at 2/3 the power. Balance maintained. Both classes will need better nuking power in PoP, don't you agree? Especially for group limited encounters (which are going to require all classes to be more flexible).

Tuved Stormrunner
07-25-2002, 09:13 AM
Since my original post got deleted during the mods move of the thread and I don't have the time to retype the whole thing, I'll keep it very short and to the point.

I am a nuking druid and we druids have without a doubt the 2nd best nukes in the game. Not counting manaburn and bane spells, we nuke very closely to wizards, in fact I can outnuke a 59 wizard. Can you immagine if a 60 druid could outheal a 59 cleric? hehe. As such I'm not really inclined to ask for many upgrades.

1.) Manaburn? No. I think it's unbalancing for wizards and wouldn't advocate druids getting it.

2.) Stronger Nukes. Only if wizards got a comensurate upgrade keeping our nukes 2nd tier to theirs.

3.) Spell casting fury mastery? Yes. I think spell casting reinforcement mastery for druids is just stupid. I have one raid buff, COS, and I'm not going to waste 12 class pts just to have it last another 10min. We are good dammage dealers and increasing our frequency of crits would not be unbalancing since we'd still be 2nd to wizards. I would also advocate a class AA ability which gave wizards and druids the ability to crit for over 200 percent.

Ehran Dyrwulf
07-25-2002, 09:51 AM
Everyone makes Moonfire out to be such a godsend for Druidic nukes.

I have it. Its nice. But it does, at max w/ no focus or crits, 1150 pts compared to 1024 for Wildfire. Add in the increased casting time as a factor, and its really not such a big upgrade.

Nice? Yes.

But IMHO I think we should get some Class AA skill that pertains to Direct Damage. I had at one point consided buying SCF (I believe that's the skill I'm thinking of), but the idea of spending 2, 4, and 6 AA points to receive such little chances of crits just didn't seem like a viable way to spend my hard earned AA points.

Just my opinion of course. :)

Oldoaktree
07-25-2002, 10:09 AM
You would be surprised how often you crit with SCF.

FYI, I think somewhere above (perhaps back in Scirocco's post) it said that Wiz and Dru SCF were equivalent. They are not actually.

SCF3 for a Wiz is a 10% chance, for druids and all other casters it is a 7% chance (at least that is what I recall...someone correct me if I am wrong).

I don't follow wizzie stuff all that closely but I know that SCFM is a higher chance over and above that, and I also think a few patches back they changed wizzies so they always had some small chance of critting, even at low levels when they had no AAXP.

I don't really have an issue with it but I just wanted to state the facts on it (at least as I know em).

Tuved SCRM also affects regen spells and with the top level NR actually begins to heal an ok amount. Tack on a buff duration focus item and it really becomes a much nicer amount healed. I know it isn't your focus, and no I also ave not spent the 20 or 21 aaxp to get the top level (I did spend 2 tho woot!). But it is not just for CoS or POTG. Think also of the DS (on those rare ocassions no mage is around). A longer duration on the DS (which doesn't typically get recast during a long boss mob fight) is pretty handy as well.

Smartypus
07-25-2002, 10:20 AM
I think mages should be the second best nukers (if they specialize in evocation) compared to wizards and druids that specialized in evocation. Druids can go back to healing, dotting, and buffing. Leave nuking to pure casters. I don't quite see how druids can want to heal very well, buff very well, dot very well, nuke very well, AND port very well. I'm sorry, but that just don't work for me.

Oldoaktree
07-25-2002, 10:26 AM
Problem I have with that is that mages already outdamage wizards through the use of pets.

No you can't call that pet every fight. But those mage epic pets lay out as much dmg as a melee can, and the mage nuking is over and above that.

Druids have always nuked 2nd best (though that definitely does not mean we are 2nd in dmg...mages are first not 3rd).

Broomhilda
07-25-2002, 10:31 AM
You do realize Smartypuss, Mages have some incredible pets. Their pets dont get resisted either(not melee at least). Their pets essentially make them a duo class. I think alot of people still have a misconception about Mages these days, mages have been improved signicantly due to some of the pet changes(specifically mezz) where they can now use them in places they previously couldnt.

"I don't quite see how druids can want to heal very well, buff very well, dot very well, nuke very well, AND port very well. I'm sorry, but that just don't work for me."


what you described is how a Druid is 'supposed' to be. Very good at alot of things, but not the best. See, you get to keep manaburn and much better sustained damage on just about any mob without the setup(rfs, for, rsd) of debuffs druids are required to do.

ccLothar
07-25-2002, 10:57 AM
Raid Mages don't use their pets that I've seen. They get CoH, Summoned Items:rods, resists, focus and their nukes. With Bolts they were once awesome nukers. I'm clueless as to where they stand now on bolts, but as I recall their Fire DD was equal to ours. I see no reason why Mages and Druids shouldn't stay roughly equal in being 2nd to Wizards. I don't want to be that close in power - perhaps 80% of a Wizard tops. ...but, do I want to nuke for more Damage than I aready do? Of couse I do!

By the way, ManaBurned shouldnot work on 32K dragons!

Oldoaktree
07-25-2002, 11:02 AM
Our mages usually do use pets. It depends on how hard it is to control the given fight. We can have oh 2 to 3 epic 60 mages at a raid. They hand around the Mod Rod 3's before the fight, and keep spitting them out on the ground. They also send in their epic pets on over half our encounters but just not at the beginning. Particularly when they have that pet control aaxp ability that lets them have a pet up without it charging off into battle due to AoE. Where max melee distance is an issue we are less likely to throw those pets in, but it is a lot of extra dmg to not take advantage of.

That said, giving mages more nukes if they are bound completely into mod rod making will do absolutely nothing for them. It will be more theoretical dmg they will not be contributing.

Oh yah wait...like wizzies mages do get Velk loot with clicky nukes. They do do that while summoning rods.

Cassea
07-25-2002, 11:02 AM
For the same reason Druids are held back due to their versitility while not on raids, mages are the same.

What is good for one is good for another *smiles*

A high level pet in a group or solo is awsome!

A group of high level pets on a raid is awsome!

Scirocco
07-25-2002, 11:05 AM
First, I have no objection to mages getting the same percentage nuke that druids get. Druids and mages have roughly stayed equal in second place re nuking power throughout our lives (and even now). Anyone who thinks that mages ought to be higher than druids simply disagrees with a fundamental game design decision that has remained unchanged for years. No reason to change this now.

Also, I don't understand the argument about "pure caster." A druid is a much a pure caster as a mage. All that is different is that one bases his or her mana on Int, and one on Wis. Moreover, the pets of a mage make his or her melee damage potential substantial. A mage is definitely not a pure caster any more than a druid is.

Graal the Dorf
07-25-2002, 12:11 PM
Anyhow I agree 100%! we should have a 2/3 nuke... though arent our dots supposed to make up for weaker nuking?

Nope. Your heals, buffs, and general versatility make up for that.

FyyrLuStorm
07-25-2002, 12:50 PM
I normally forego pointing out typos and grammar.

But I must say something about the one in your sig, Pally.

Fayne Dethe
07-25-2002, 01:18 PM
Druid damage is a joke compared to both mages and wizards, especially since the changes in pets where they dont agro, break Mez, and use the resistances of their owner (not much need for Pet Hold AA ability anymore). Druid healing is also a joke but that has been discussed to death in other threads. Pre-kunark druids were right up there with nuking/healing (CH wasnt really needed back then), but now druids are so far behind the curve its ridiculous and without any special abilities to compensate - instead all the druid abilities are given out via items, AA ability, or Luclin spells. Because the fact that druids were overpowered in 1999 before any expansions came out, druids should really suck 51+ where 95% of your play time is spent?? As each expansion comes out, druid abilities get spread around more and more to the other supposed "specialized" classes.

Now back to nuking, I dont see Verant giving us better nukes other than improving Ancient Starfire of Ro - exact same spell as moonfire with slightly less mana cost /yawn - make it do 1250 damage with higher mana cost or lower cast time to 4 seconds. With a lower cast time, it still wouldnt be overpowering since druids have no way to lower aggro and tend to have high innate aggro.

The only other solution I see is giving druids a form of spell casting fury mastery. Dont have it give as high percentage as wizard version, but our crits are way too rare in comparison which means our damage is FAR below that of a wizard.

Before people complain about all the druid abilities - lets see sow: everyone has run 3, sow potions cheap, horses can run bard speeds and can be used to manarobe/epic while medding; regen: various regen items out there and wizards can use epic to get back hitpoints faster than regen (not to mention shamans get a group regrowth that overwrites druids ;p); teleports: wizards far superior here with translocates and ports to nexus (and other classes using Nexus, items that port unlimited times, gate potions, and upcoming PoP); buffs: druid buffs rarely used anymore with people sticking to aegolism because of all the FT items, items that give mana regen that dont stack with potg, many classes have self buffs that dont stack, and long lasting C3 generally enough (oh yeah wizards have that "kick @#%$" spellshield heh, but people ask for it on raids more often than PotG); dots: low damage compared to other dot classes/nukes, takes too long to act, only one person can use, and hasnt been any sort of upgrade since 53rd kunark; thorns: many items that do thorns nowdays including rechargeable chardok ring, unlimited from ring off dain, potions available, mages have always had superior ones even counting Ancient thorns (creator dagger >>> common than ancient spells), a single thorn by druid is pretty useless on a mob nowdays especially when slowed - it only adds up when bard there singing his songs + using VP mage stone + mage damage shield + potion; snare/root/harmony - tons of weapons that snare and wizzies get their own version, most classes can root or get items that root (which wont break mez from doing damage), and harmony is basically worthless cause you rarely fight in outdoor zones where it might have some use and such places usually the mobs are totally immune (CT) or there are so many wanderers you would be better of pulling really fast and high tailing it out of there; charm animals/level 24 bear pet: hahahaha, nuff said (wizard pet which totally sucks is better than bear pet, and there are almost 0 animals past newbie zones or not tagged animals); heals - ok most classes cant obtain healing items other than regen or an item that casts a rune effect, but druid healing has definitely not kept up with the evolution of EQ - all about CH, and even paladins can heal groups better with group heal.

So you may look at what all that druids can do. Many casters have a ton of spell lines that are jokes/not that useful (cough wizard damage shield). The druid is no different, and some spell lines that used to rule back in 1999 like damage shields are pitifully ineffective nowdays unless you do the bard/mage stacking stuff on a main tank in uber encounter ;p. It doesnt help that all the specialist classes can pick up items or obtain AA xp to do most of the abilities of a druid. So basically, the strength of druids which was versatility is rather meaningless nowdays. The main 2 lines that I still see as viable to make druids wanted again are the healing and nuking - the rest of the fluff has been so diluted to other classes it isnt wanted.

Graal the Dorf
07-25-2002, 01:52 PM
Fixed. ;)

Smartypus
07-25-2002, 02:07 PM
The only other solution I see is giving druids a form of spell casting fury mastery. Dont have it give as high percentage as wizard version, but our crits are way too rare in comparison which means our damage is FAR below that of a wizard.

Pardon me, but I don't agree with this at all. Druids, in the original concept, were more of a healer type than a damage dealer. Note: I'm not saying druids should not do damage, but only the healing part is stressed more than the damage part.

You cannot expect to get 2/3 of every single ability in Everquest. No other class gets that, except Bards and they have to click their asses off and keep concentration where it belongs.

Following this argument, wizards are the best DD class, and perhaps the best port class. Now why, because we shine in two regions, don't we have 50% the healing ability of a cleric, 50% of the buffing ability of a shaman, 50% of the snare ability of a druid, 50% of the mezz ability of an enchanter, etc, etc? Because it doesn't work.

If you insist on 2/3 of the best nuke of a wizard (excl. Manaburn), I can maybe see that go IF and only if it is:

1) Based on ONE element (Druids should not get 2/3 damage nukes in all three elements)
2) Has a relatively bad ratio (3.3 - 3.5 max)
3) Has a relatively long cast time (4+ seconds)
4) Has a relatively long recast time (6 seconds or more)

Druids are not there to chain nuke.

And please don't count manaburn, very few wizards will reach that level and its just for ****s and giggles.

Smartypus
07-25-2002, 02:08 PM
Oh and, I stand by my point that mages should have an edge over druids in nukes. If anything, I can think they should get Spell Casting Fury Mastery, but I wouldn't really agree with that. Mage pets are nice, but not enough mages will get their epic pet. Their epic is hell. Plain hell. And with their best normal pet I think they need better nukes.

Smartypus
07-25-2002, 02:10 PM
Concerning Spellshield, I am not up there yet, but I would be really annoyed if I have to buff an entire raid with Spellshield.

Oldoaktree
07-25-2002, 02:50 PM
Well the difference between wizzies being the best at 2 skills (DD and porting) and not getting 50% cleric heals is that wizzies are best at 2 things.

Druids by definition are best at nothing.

We have always been much stronger nukers than healers. Look back to the pre-kunark spells and starfire and ice (highest druid nukes up to 50) simply blew away our highest heal.

Pre kunark predates me (I waited to buy EQ so I could buy it as part of the expansion package), and I think some changes may have been made in our heal line up before kunark. I just don't know.

Also, FYI, a 4 sec nuke would be like light speed for a druid. Moonfire is 6.2secs, Wildfire is 5.8 secs. Often I at least don't have time to cast a nuke before an exp mob dies. Also, we only have meaningful nukes in two elements. The magic based ones are outdoor only, have poorer ratios, and are really stun/nukes. I am not aware of any outdoor raid mobs they actually land on, nor would I use them since the ratio is so much poorer than the cold/fire nukes.

Tuved Stormrunner
07-25-2002, 03:22 PM
If you think a druid is an effective healing class in the end game, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

We are however a very effective nuking class in the end game. Deal with it.

VERY LOW SODIUM
07-25-2002, 03:57 PM
Druids had to fight tooth and nail to get the healing upgrades recieved during Kunark. At Kunark release, druid healing sucked rocks. Druids were damage dealers/evacers/sowers, mainly. Ahh.. the good ol days when the Vision(tm) nerfed us all on a regular basis.

*kicks the bloody_vision_corpse_001 for good measure*


"... if I had known you were going to pimp me out, I would have worn a dress!"
-The vision, GUComics

Silverblade the Enchanter
07-25-2002, 04:12 PM
As a mage, some points :)

1) I personally don't want manaburn or SCFM, I'd rather have an AA skill that adds, 1, 2 and 3 levels to pet for appropriate AA cost.

2) I'd rather get cold and poison spells (bolts?) than BIGGER nukes. Fed up to heck with mobs we can't nuke *at all* Or as an idea I suggested: a summoned nuke that hits versus armour class, ye old anvil off the head :>
Guess there's no chance of that :/
Mages are not and should not be EVOKERS, we're meant to CONJURE elemental stuff up, napalm, blades, elementals etc. For instance, one of our rain series is RAIN OF SWORDS (spikes, blades) sounds to me like it conjures stuff up? Ergo all our nukes/rains should be conjuration.

3) you *NEED* pet hold to use pets properly on raids, AoEs *cough* If a pet attacks a mob, its neutrality is broken within the call for help radius of its target mob. Only with pet hold that FORCES pet neutrality are pets, practically, 99% safe. beyond that it relies heavily on mages skill and luck. I'd say the pet non-aggro thing improved pets useablity 50%, still things you need to consider, such as you're pet can wander all through the Hole safely, BUT, if you are aggroed on, and pet is near, pet instanlty aggorsdon mob..well then mobs near pet, if its in Shout For Help radius of its target will aggro on it.

4) All caster nukes have remained static really since Kunark, go check the mana/damage ratios out, only really good improvement on ANY of them is Ice SPear of the Solist, is that not correct? if so why arent *ALL* nukers nukes upgraded?

5) Please dont' bring epic pet into this *brittle grin* it's EXTREMELY hard to get.

6) The idea that mages or druids can or should nuke more than 75% as well as wizards (and that's pushing it, wizzies should be MORE powerful now, probably in terms of mana cost if not actual damage) IS FREAKING NUTS!
>WIZARD< 95% of what he does is NUKE, all day. Can he buff? OKiels anyone? he can TP! Tahts about it really.The class is all ABOUT nuking. If druids want to nuke anywhere near as well as that, em ok, stop healing, one or the other NOT BOTH.

7) Druids can heal AND nuke, you CANNOT do both as well as the prime classes (clerics/wizzies) without laughing in the face of game balance. if you wish to say "why do mages nuke so well then?" Mages get fire and magic nukes only, mages get a regen buff of 5hp tick, same shield spell as all Int casters, please go try and run a mage compared to a druid. pets arre wonderful, mages are amazing solo or in groups, *BUT* it takes a fair bit of skill. As for crowd control...uh uh, forget it, I can pet mez 1 mob, if out doors I can kite another perhaps, heck I aggroed mobs and tanked them when they were on the chanter, but my little character gets *smacked BALD* doing so. He's a whimp a dress :>

8 ) So What to do? Druids should nuke and heal *well*, they seem to do that pretty well actually, EXCEPT in terms of high point heals and group heals. If there's specific problems with you're nukes, types of, weakness of, thats something to work on. but not your damage per nuke, unless ALL nuke classes are improved. I can see different IDEAS for nukes by way, transmuting the ground into living spikes of rock (lure effect, high mana cost, maybe need a reagent, very long recast time)

Happy druiding :)

Redorious
Archmage
Karana

Scirocco
07-25-2002, 04:54 PM
Druids, in the original concept, were more of a healer type than a damage dealer.

Um, wrong. Druids, in the original concept, were equally a wisdom-based nuker as much as a healing class.

Druids never were 2/3 in every area. Many areas we were well under 50%. But in order to be playable, part of the balance compromise meant that we had to be in the 2/3 to 3/4 range for our major lines. Otherwise druids just wouldn't be playable.

Once again, I seek only to restore druids to the historic status quo vis a vis wizards with regard to nuking. With the above changes wizards will be still be head and shoulders above any other class as far as nuking go.

quseiomasterofelements
07-25-2002, 05:49 PM
Be best dsers second best nukes . Now druids are in both(read ancient whtever the heck its called). Ithink mages should have a much more dmging ds but be shorter duration be nice if we had a long duration less dmg ds for soloing to. mages cant kite cant track( trembles in rage at the memorie at druids and rangers constantly killing all the rabid bears in qhills lol).

For druids id say yes better dots but how bout puttin some debuffs on them tht stacked withmost everything make it dragon hard to resist balanced at whtever dot dmg is balanced make several different dot debuffs with highish mana costs so there are reasons for more druids than trod healing ect cetra.

I dont exactly like the trod situation but its here to stay i do want dses to get some useage other than sploits in raids how bout beefing up the dses of mages. think of it this way mages are just about helpless wo pet we either gate, zone, run, or die when we get blue adds with the exception of maybe the epiced mage. Druids on the other hand can root snare blah blah mages cant heal themselfs at all so we got to siton our arses till we regen.

Yino
07-25-2002, 06:06 PM
mages were originally 2nd best nukers, and when I signed up I was told mages are second best nukers.

The comparison that a mage + his pet = more damage then a wizard is true, but its not wrong.
A wizard is not designed to deal the most damage, they are designed to nuke the best, that they do, and in fact they should be nuking for more if you ask me
Now if you look at a mages spells we lack diversity at all, we have nukes, and pets, basically, with the exception of CoH which doesn't even really fit us well if you ask me, and mod rods, (2 specific spells)
a mage SHOULD be dealing more damage with his pet then a wizard, because sometimes he can use it, sometimes he can't, when he can't he'll deal less, when he can, he should deal more, because it balances it out that wizards have ports, root, snare, columns, MUCH better AEs, etc. they have a lot more diversity, so for a mage in an ideal situation (where he can use his pet all the time) he should deal better damage, because he lacks the diversity, and can not use his pet all the time

Now the druid nuking thing, no offense but a druid should not be getting any version of manaburn
IF you got spell casting fury mastery or whatever it is, it should be at a lower rate then wizards and mages should get it as well
as far as individual nukes mages were supposed to nuke slightly better, as of lately the last couple expansions druids have tied, and now taken the lead in nuke ability.
In my mind this is not right, because a druid has cold nukes, as well as fire and magic (although magic is outdoor only) that still leaves them with fire/cold, and mages with fire/magic, I'd take fire/cold in a heartbeat
Now compare versitility, there is no way you guys should nuke 2nd best, heal 2nd best, dot (I donno how good you are, behind necros and shamys prolly, so third best), have some VERY useful buffs, teleports that are pretty much as good (just lacking the TL set), snare, root, better AC, more hps, better melee (k kinda weak but it counts at some levels :P)

In my opinion a mage should have DDs pretty much exactly equal to a druids, BUT we should get some bolts that would put us ahead. IF not bolts then mages should have some kind of slight edge in nuking power, as they have in the past
progression should be
Wizard
Mage (bolt) 75-80%
Druid/Mage 70%

Thats just my opinion, I think its fair based on the abilities of the classes

Oh side note, on the heals, druids should get better heals I'll give ya that, in exp groups you can heal, sorta, but end game its non existant, and you do sacrifice nuking ability to heal (hell if you couldn't heal I'd have no problem with you nuking better then a mage, but you can, so you shouldn't nuke better, BUT your heals should be more useful for this price you pay)

No I dont think you should get CH, to be honest I think clerics should get it, MAYBE at like level 55, at a minimum

BUT druids should be able to heal better then they can now (who knows I dont know how much this last patch will help you)

Niesei
07-25-2002, 07:44 PM
Unfortunately the druid class just doesn't work in EverQuest. They are extremely powerful in D&D games, but EQ has lost all sense of what little D&D elements it once had. It now shamelessly rips spell names and mob concepts while leaving the finely tuned D&D mechanics in favor of a **balance** system.

Obviously, the two choices that can be made are tough when concerning druids:

1. Return Druids to their former glory, while breaking the games **balance** system to satisfy the needs of an obliterated class. (Face it, druids have little to no high end use, other than nuking.) This may seem right, however using logic one would see that increasing the Druid's strength to its original levels would once again increase the sheer number of druids and throw the game out of whack again. (Remember why you were *nerfed*)

Choice 2: Leave the class as-is, thus preserving the game state, while leaving a small portion (Statistically 1/14, realisticly 1/12ish) of the high-end (Mains only) population weakend and completely obsolete in future expansions. (one might say this is little of a problem, if there is one thing druids *are* the best at, it is Powerleveling)

Increasing the nuking power of Druids would piss Magicians off to no end, trust me, I know.

Increasing the healing power of Druids would piss Clerics off to no end, I know several who believe this way.

My personal opinion, take it or leave it, is this:

I personally would enjoy sitting back and watch as Verant deletes every last druid, including mine. I have long felt (Kunarkish) that Druids were highly unspeciallized, but fairly decent in many trades, much like a bard, without Manasong, and the finger peanaltys that go with playing a bard. The constant annoyance of level 55+ Druids who Kite their ways to the upper levels without knowing their roles in a group are hard to deal with, more so than any other class I know of, barring my own. (I always recommend unskilled 51+ Magicians to reroll their chars as something else, lest they wipe out raids with their sheer incompetence, and unwilling to listen to advice)

Apart from that, it is also completely unclear as to what Druids *truely* want. It is not a simple matter of a 2-sided debate, as most classes have. For Druids (So it seems), it is multi-sided. Those who want better Nukes, those who favor Healing, those who favor Buffing, those who wish for a mix of all, those who wish to be Best/Second Best at **ALL**, those who desire amazing feats and Manaburn-esque skills. The list of whining (so it seems) goes on and on. Whining to VI will (hopefully) just get you ignored. Asking them to adress a specific issue (Ex. Magician pet hostility, Wizard Famillar Iissues) and not compiling a laundry lists of upgrades you *want* should tend to get your class noticed. Many of the recent caster changes have been bug fixes and enhancements, they were not introduced to boost the power of any particular class to godlike status.

It seems every time I come here, there are Druids nearly *DEMANDING* for upgrades as if their class is all that matters, they do not look at it from other classes perspectives. Sure, I would love to be able to nuke 2/3 that of a wizard, but then, why not get two Magicians over one wizard, so they could nuke nicely, use pets *and* split Rod duties (Its 2, not 3 people) to increase CLERIC (/rude druids who use rods to nuke, clerics and EPIC/Runed Wizards only {No Low Health agro Wizzys, please}) Im getting carried away, my point is, try looking at your class from the perspective of other classes, since the **Balance** system will not be overturned, you must conform, and be placed in your spot like everyone else, recieving little upgrades once per patch or so, enough to keep you quelled till your next upgrade. The game will NOT change for your class, your class must adapt to the game the way it is. The Druid class cannot regain its former power, much like the Necromancer and Magician classes (Remember the uber 49th level pets vs. any old world mob?) Please, learn to deal with it.

Thats my story, and I am sticking to it.

-Niesei Fireworks

Scirocco
07-25-2002, 08:07 PM
mages were originally 2nd best nukers, and when I signed up I was told mages are second best nukers.

Verant dispelled this belief very early on. Mages were never promised to be the second best nukers overall. They were supposed to be the second best Int based nukers. Druids were the best wisdom based nukers and on a par with mages, at least. Verant came out and said so. Sorry.

With PoP and restricted groups staring us in the face, I really don't care if some modifications that keep druids up where they belong nukewise piss off some mages. I've listened to some (not all) mages bitch about how they should be better than druids in nuking since the game was released. They aren't dealing with the game as designed. My response has been "Go summon a water elemental and cry me a river."

I will repeat what I said above...I have no problem with mages getting the same nukes as druids (or the same changes as mentioned above). Any mage that wants to shove druids down the nuking rankings can start summoning the aforementioned water elemental...:)

Miss Foxfyre
07-25-2002, 10:41 PM
Druids, in the original concept, were more of a healer type than a damage dealer. Note: I'm not saying druids should not do damage, but only the healing part is stressed more than the damage part.
Where's your proof? Show me the design documents that say druids were more healer than nature-based damage dealer.


You cannot expect to get 2/3 of every single ability in Everquest. No other class gets that, except Bards and they have to click their asses off and keep concentration where it belongs.
ROFL! We don't want or expect 2/3 of every single ability in EverQuest. You're talking hyperbole, my little gnome friend.


Following this argument, wizards are the best DD class, and perhaps the best port class. Now why, because we shine in two regions, don't we have 50% the healing ability of a cleric, 50% of the buffing ability of a shaman, 50% of the snare ability of a druid, 50% of the mezz ability of an enchanter, etc, etc? Because it doesn't work.
Because two out of all the abilities does NOT equal 50% of clerical healing, shamanistic buffing, or mez. You already have snare, so what's up with naming that in your argument? Your snare is already over half a druid's snare. Teehee. And "because it doesn't work" doesn't work. That's not a good reason, and you know it.

Cassea
07-26-2002, 03:41 AM
The reason you give a utility class 2/3 of everything is so that when they need to fill for any number of abilities you can fill in by 2/3.

Druids have always been pretty good at Nuking. It was with the advent of AA Points that wizards pulled ahead more that tradition dictates. I do not have a problem with this. This is all Wizards do, they do it well and with the upcoming expansion they are being "nerfed" just like us by giving all the classes limited porting.

It is the area of healing that Druids took a pounding.

I will not repost what has already been said but a few of us are advocating a percentage based heal for the healing classes that would be on par with our current best heal (so no pissing anyone off) as a way to protect against future mudflation.

We are still pursuing a separate bump in healing ability to bring us back our more traditional 2-3 Druids = 1 cleric that CH has broken. Want to keep these issues separate as we would like both (and have presented logical facts for both) but do not want to present Verant with an all or nothing approach.

Mages and Druids could always nuke about the same. My first character was a mage and although I only took my mage to level 23 back in '99 it was enough to see that in the beginning mages did not outnuke Druids per say but they did with their limited bolt-spells. With more traditional spells Druids were a hair better but we were neck and neck as we are today.

While we got heals and ports and sow and utility spells - mages got a mini-tank. There was no dought in my mind that mages were too weak back in '99 and perhaps Druids a little too powerful back in '99.

Fast forward to '02

Druids recieve VERY minor upgrades in three years and a few nerfs (some since removed - thanks Verant for coming to your senses *smiles*)

Mages recieve a few nice things including COH (linited use), Mod rods (limited use but VERY useful in the right circumstances), a bump in pet power and more recently some issues that prevented a pet from being useful in raids adressed that now makes the pet more acceptable to some raids. They also recieved a kickass epic-pet but as a tease because their epic is perhaps the most difficult to obtain in the game.

Mages are tricky in a way. With full use of a pet they are clearly too powerful but without a pet they are little more than a weak Wizard without ports. I encourage Verant to continue to improve Mages to try and allow the most use of pets for our brother and sister casters for I'll always have a soft spot for my very first EQ character.

Stormhaven
07-26-2002, 04:09 AM
Ok, what the hell are we talking about in this thread? When you say that you want to look at druid offensive power are you talking "end game" only, or are you including the whole 1-60, or 51-60 level range?

It's a valid question because through all three of those periods, druids flux all over the "strongest nuker" guide line.

Most of the comments in this thread seem to be aimed towards the end game, so I'll make my post as such.

Mages -
You guys got your roles in Everquest swapped, just like druids did. I agree that mages should probably have had the second best nukes overall in the game, but instead of giving you solid nukes, Verant gave you freaking nice pet to compensate. Like I said in the wizard "moonfire thread," you cannot ignore your pet's damage output while calculating a mage's dps. Once cast, the mage pet is a manaless, perpetual dot. One wizard pointed out the fact that druids can both DoT and nuke, and that both should be taken into consideration when calculating how much damage a druid does - the same can be said for mages. Now, how well your pets interact in a raid situation, that's something that pet classes need to address with Verant. Also, if my server is any indication, mage epics are no where near as rare as they used to be.

Scirocco - clarify something for me. When you say "Percentage based nukes," I'm assuming that you're saying VI should use wizards as the ruler to judge all other class nukes against? I'm assuming you're not saying that a nuke should do a standard percentage based amount of damage to a mob (ie: a 10% nuke). I hope so, because damage percentage based nukes would be scary :)

Right now, I honestly think druids are doing ok on the nuke side of the house. Moonfire has a decent mana/dmg ratio, and most creatures (except Kael) seem relatively weak against ice. With all the AA skills, our crits do get pretty close to those of wizards.

I also believe that the ancient spell lines are a joke that shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. A class cannot be considered "balanced" if 90% of the class cannot get the items that balance the class. Even though the "Ring of Vulak" has been confirmed to drop ancient spells, their numbers are so few that they cannot be used in any type of class balance discussion.

I also disagree with how VI implements their current spell drop system. One of the most exciting things I remember looking forward to in the 1-50 days when leveling was reaching that new spell set circle. Now, you get a few spells you can buy off a vendor, and hope that someone is selling the "good" spells for a price you can afford. "We" as the druid community have to focus on how well we do in the end game, but meanwhile, a lot of folks who've never even seen THO or North ToV are listening about us arguing the merits of moonfire when they've never seen a copy and their druid has been level 60 just as long as ours.

LyphNmar
07-26-2002, 05:31 AM
The problem in class balance discussions is one category of people...

Everyone know that to improve a char you need...
1st. to know how to play it
2nd. make xp and get level and AA skills
3rd. equipment

And for some morons...
4rd. Whining on boards to try convince VI you need to be improved more

The 4rd, is the way that can bring you the most powerfull upgrades, so is very tempting.

Only problem is that you usualy sink serious discussions in a Bazaar in wich you shout auctions to get the best spell possible for the smaller price hoping someone at Verant will be hit on the head and hear you..

That sinks good ideas in a sea of delirium and laughs.

But I guess for that kind of people that doesn't matter.

Silverblade the Enchanter
07-26-2002, 07:43 AM
Stormhaven,
I've been counting up and it loosk like there's 25 mage epics on karana, very nice! :)
How many DRUID epics do you think there are though however? ;)

There is a valid point to be made on the changes both classes hit around 50, going from a lot of soloing power, to hitting the "mobflation" barrier. And then going into raiding and that change is a pain in the butt, so I can sympathize there, that change upsets and frustrates a lot of people
(Yeah not always END game things that cause problems, 51-55 can be a b*tch).

It's taken 3 years to fix most of the problem with pets, and that REALLY freakin' burned up the mage community, at the end of velious, typically there were 2 to 8 lvl 60 mages on Karana any evening (6PM GMT to 2 AM) . Now THAT was utter B***** :< Mages got heartily fed up and left EQ or went to alts, now it's reversing, woot!
Pets are extremely good DoTs ;) Took skill to use them though (hence bad mages used to stand out like a sore thumb, ugh), recent changes helped considerably.

As said, I personally would rather have cold and/or poison nukes, than bigger nukes. Very annoying not being able to nuke mobs :/

I am HOPING druids dont feel so bad, that's NOT fun :(
I can see raiding druids have problem, least in the healing area, nuking I dont see being lacking EXCEPT that you have problems with magic nukes indoors?? And that as nature priests I think it would be good to give you some unnusal, hard to resist, but long recast time effects, ie making the ground erupt in spikes, summon hailstorms or such like.
if you are healing in group then your nuking is limited, but you are healer/nukers *shrug*. if there were more druids, and thus you could swap heal/nuke roles it would be better?

Personally, when it comes to buffage, an area some druids address, we usually get MGB aego, so I don't want to bother a druid for PTOC and then a cleric for symbol :/ I knwo wizards do its more valuble to them. Mages get a lvl 58 self buff 5hp regen and 3 mana tick, PTOC/PTOG overwrites that, theres an EXTREMELY bloody rare lvl 54 buff that only has hp regen but does stack with PTOG/PTOC (drops off only 1 single named snake in Shezzra, guess how many mages have it?)

Redorious
Archmage
karana

Scirocco
07-26-2002, 08:45 AM
Let's keep the focus on nuking for the moment. An area by area approach as the first step appears to be the way Verant is approaching it, so let's look at individual elements the same way.

Also, while looking at what is going on NOW, let's not forget about PoP and group limitations. Keep in mind that we ALL will need bigger nukes in the future with PoP (and any expansions after that).


Scirocco - clarify something for me. When you say "Percentage based nukes," I'm assuming that you're saying VI should use wizards as the ruler to judge all other class nukes against? I'm assuming you're not saying that a nuke should do a standard percentage based amount of damage to a mob (ie: a 10% nuke). I hope so, because damage percentage based nukes would be scary :)

Scary, but necessary. It is with the future in mind that I proposed percentage-based nukes. There are two ways to base the damage:

1. Percentage of mob's max possible hp
2. Percentage of mob's current (remaining) hp

The first would keep the damage per cast constant, but the percentage would have to be fairly low so that a few casts wouldn't kill the mob. The second would cause diminishing returns to a predetermined minimum damage. Thus, it would have most effect early on in the life of the mob, when it would be most hazardous for a nuker to use (tradeoffs, tradeoffs...).

Why? Because with mudflation, we can expect mob hps to continue to climb. And with group limits, we can expect that the individual members of a group are going to have to do substantially more damage than they can do now.

Wizards, of course, would set the high mark of whatever the percentage based nuke would be. For example, let's suppose it was 50% (just to toss an even number out). Mages and druids would be casting their percentage nukes at around 33% to 35%. Or if wizards were at 33%, it would be 16% to 20% for the secondary nukers.

And this type of nuke isn't as scary as you might think, due to the dimishing returns.

Think big. :)

Broomhilda
07-26-2002, 08:55 AM
I strongly support percentage based abilties. If anything, because if things arent percentage based they'll eventually become outdated with new content. A case in point is our healing, which was fixed way back but became outdated not long afterward with new mobs. If healing was fixed way back w/ percentage based abilities, then they wouldnt have had to rebalance our healing constantly for the scaling of mobs for each expansion. It would automatically adjust itself.

WyteNK
07-26-2002, 09:33 AM
You know, I would be almost as happy at increases in nuking ability without wildly increasing our dps. There's a few ways this could be done.

- Cold Debuff.
- Weaker than Wizard cold and fire lures.

If a mob is immune to fire and/or cold, what do we do? We heal. That's pretty close to our only option.

For those of you that don't know, lures are defined by the amount of negative charisma that's attached to the spell. If memory serves, Ro's Fiery Sundering is set at -6 cha (this makes it a lure debuff). All Wizard lures are set at -5 cha (as far as I know).

Druids could be made more effective at nuking with either a lesser lure (ie: -3 or -4 charisma), or a full lure (-5 or -6 charisma) that does less damage, or both.

Personally, I would like to see a workable combination. Right now Ro's + Wildfire, and Moonfire aren't very useful in certain situations. If Wildfire and Moonfire had a very small lure component (-1 cha), and we had a lure cold debuff then we could do alright in most situations. Ours would be resisted more than Wizards, and at the same time the debuffs would make Wizard nukes more reliable.

At this point bigger nukes (leaving AAxp out of it) is too much to ask for IMO.


Wyte Psycnosis <Ordo Malleus>
60 Dooid - Rallos Zek

WyteNK
07-26-2002, 09:36 AM
Oh, and I would be happy exactly the way we are (well... maybe with some healing improvements) if we had an unresistable and unbreakable root. I would personally love to see an increase in power outside the stereotypical heal/nuke argument for class balance.

Wyte Psycnosis <Ordo Malleus>
60 Dooid - Rallos Zek

Graal the Dorf
07-26-2002, 09:56 AM
If a mob is immune to fire and/or cold, what do we do? We heal. That's pretty close to our only option.

You do have another option. Wizards don't, which is the only reason they get lures in the first place. IF the mob is completely MR, FR, and CR then wizards get to twiddle their thumbs. You at least have other things you can do.

Aidon Rufflefuzz
07-26-2002, 10:01 AM
I am, for the most part, pleased with Druid nuking abilities. We are the second best nukers in the game.

I think we do need two minor tweaks in this department, however.

1) We need a cold version of the Ro's debuff series, or at the least a cold version of RFS.

2) We need a means to reduce our aggro. Though this is not so much a result of nuking as from debuffing and healing, imo. Every other "damage" class in the game has some means of lowering themselves on the hate list. Monks and Necro's feign. Rangers, Wizards, and Enchanters have spells. Rogues can evade. Mages have pets.

Unfortunately the three Priest classes probably have the most need for aggro reduction after Enchanters...and we're the three without any. Between our healing, debuffs, and damage, we are three classes who gain the most unintentional aggro. While I have questions on whether it would be wise to give clerics self aggro reduction (healing aggro plays a huge role in creating what little balance CH has), Shaman and Druids really need something.

Oldoaktree
07-26-2002, 10:05 AM
Actually, I think the reason wizards got Lures was that it was Verant's original idea for how to make the wizards kings of nuking. Add mobs that wizards and only wizards could nuke. Fortunately they got over that (pretty much) because it left far too many classes with nothing to do.

Roll forward...wizards now are kings of nukes by having both the biggest nukes, and (by far) the highest crit rates. And manaburn.

Lures have very bad ratios and not much of the new content relates to lure based nukes. I don't have first hand experience with some of the higher Luclin bosses of course, but everything (as far as I am aware) in Velious is nukeable with the right type of normal spell, isn't it?

The only set of spells that really could use lure versions in this day and age are the debuffs. Those would be extremely powerful spells. Some already do of course, but imagine the frightening power of a lure based slow for shammies or enchanters (would give that to enchanters actually...balance out the power of slow some that way, 45 - 55% slow lure based).

For druids, that would mean lure based snare, or root, or Ro's type spells, or cold versions of Ro's spells.

Lure based nukes...I don't see the need (though I guess the wizard giant-bane/dragon-bane spells are lure based? those are kind of in their own category though). I know there are a lot in the game still doing some of those encounters (VS, some of the mobs in hate etc) but it is very rare for me now to fight mobs that no one but wizzies can nuke.

Cassea
07-26-2002, 10:06 AM
Just to be fair thou...

The three priest classes do have much better AC over the INT casters.

I would like what you ask too :)

Oldoaktree
07-26-2002, 10:20 AM
Remeber though that Clerics have DA, and shamans slow the mob and torpor. They also both have higher AC/HP than druids do.

All intelligence casters get spell casting subtlety, and most get some sort of self preservation option though not all are equally effective.

The original tool designed for druids to deal with unwanted agro was Spirit of Cheetah. It is absolutely useless in this day and age.

Cassea
07-26-2002, 10:31 AM
LOL I don't think I have even memmed that spell in over two years :)

Miss Foxfyre
07-26-2002, 11:55 AM
All right, who hijacked this thread? It's a nuking discussion...

Stormhaven
07-26-2002, 12:04 PM
I... don't think I've ever read that one, Oak.... The bit about SoC being the druid's aggro reducer. Running has never been a viable option to reduce aggro, even in the old world.
A - Most of the mobs would chase you, and if you were in a raid, the tanks would yell at you cause they now had to chase the mob.
B - All high level content in the old world was also indoors - except for CT (the god).

...but that's a bit off track.

I would like to have an aggro reducer in my spell list, however, I can see people ranting about this, and I would agree with some of what they're saying. The crux of the druid's abilities in most areas (healing/nuking/debuffing) has always been that we had to control our own aggro. That was our thorn and one of the reasons I think VI allowed us to have pretty good spells in all areas. I don't think the enormously high aggro factor on the Ro's debuff series was by mistake.

And Siro - I still think the percentage based nuked are way too high. I understand the whole concept of diminishing returns if you do it based on a "percent hit point remaining," however take a look at a mob like the Emperor or the Avatar of War (because they're both pretty close to the 1mil hp mark). First wizard to nuke has just done well over 100k worth of damage (assuming a 10% nuke). If this had normal aggro, that wizard would be dead. If the spell had low aggro like manaburn, it's way too powerful. Assuming you had three wizards with you on a firefight, the first three nukes on AoW would do approximately 100k, 90k, 81k. AoW would be down to around 75% hp in a few seconds. Until the AoW reaches around 40 or 50% in health, your wizards are going to be doing a constant 5k+ in damage. He'll be around 30% life in twelve nukes. Trivialized? :P

If percentage nukes go in, they'll probably have very long recasts (see: minutes/half hour), they may also limit the number of times that it can be cast on a mob in a row (like the Donal's BP CH). There's also the chance that some mobs would be completely immune.

I know the percentage nukes make sense for some of the smaller single group encounters, but they'd be very hard to balance on large raid mobs - which is where most people think we need the most help.

Scirocco
07-26-2002, 12:24 PM
Percentage based nuking is primarily forward looking, against mobs that will make the AoW seem trivial. And yes, a wizard casting a percentage nuke to start out with is going to become wizard pate. Or AoW toejam...:O

The other changes were aimed more to help us where we are right now. Answer the following questions:

1. Leaving AA skills out, are druids at 60 about where they should be in comparison to wizards re basic DD nuking?

2. If they are, then shouldn't druids get the AA nuking skills just the same as wizards, in order to maintain that balance?

My answer to both is yes, and thus the AA skill changes would boost us a bit to be in line with wizards again.

Now, the next question is whether all nukers need to be boosted under current conditions, assuming any percentage based nuking is out of the question. Probably. A 3K or 4K nuke for wizards, with druids getting a similar nuke at a comparable %, would certainly be welcome, I think.


Oh, yes, we might as well add a Cold Debuff line to match Ro's. This would help all cold-based nukers, just like our Ro's. The Ro's sequence in raids for 2 or 3 druids is a good example of requiring multiple druids on a raid. We ought to have 3 matching cold debuffs, starting with "Karana's Frosty Halitosis", or something like that. Or "North Side of Tunare's T....," well, you get the idea...:)

Oldoaktree
07-26-2002, 01:04 PM
Quote:

I... don't think I've ever read that one, Oak.... The bit about SoC being the druid's aggro reducer. Running has never been a viable option to reduce aggro, even in the old world.

It might be that I read it in third party material (that Prima book). But that is the point I guess I am making. SoC is definitely designed to help you run away form something. It is the equivalent skill to DA for druids...but that tells me that druids were originally envisioned as soloers more or less.

I don't think the original game envisioned raid situations per se. Weren't the planes added later? Only original raid content was Vox and Naggy right? And most of the world in those days there was no such thing as summon.

If you compare the mechanics of SoC with DA it is very similar - long reset, short duration, really only good for dealing with an immediate problem. For cleric, you need someone else to get the agro. For druid, it was about running for a zone line.

But yes this is a little off topic. But goes back to agro reduction...which related to nukes... It is virtually impossible for these threads to not wander a bit...so many issues are interrelated (nuking and agro for instance).

I also feel that %based nukes are too powerful. If they were added, I would expect those %'s to be pitifully small...like 3-5% for the very, very strongest wizard nukes. That is still an overwhelmingly powerful abillity. 10 wizards casting the nuke 2x could kill any mob in the game.

Scirocco
07-26-2002, 03:21 PM
10 wizards casting the nuke 2x could kill any mob in the game.

No, they couldn't. You are calculating 2% of the total mob hps, not current hps: 5% * 10 * 2



Remember diminishing returns. After the first wizard would get a 5% nuke, the next would get a (5*.95)% nuke, and so on down the line, based on the total mob hp. Each nuke is based on the current hp of the mob. Theoretically, unless there is a minimum damage, these wizards could never kill the mob with their percentage based nukes.

Role Meggido
07-26-2002, 05:18 PM
I think they should just cut down on cast and refresh times a bit. Imo nuking is basically fine, especially if our time between nukes is shaved.

Smartypus
07-26-2002, 06:21 PM
http://otcentral.xibase.com/phpbb/images/smiles/retard4.gif

http://otcentral.xibase.com/phpbb/images/smiles/retard5.gif

Silverblade the Enchanter
07-26-2002, 08:29 PM
Aidon,

Pets, on large mobs, do NOT reduce your aggro. Most folk don't realize this but when you do a high lvl mob you *MUST* put pet taunt off. What happens when a pet taunts is it pushes itself up the hate ladder, but YOU AS WELL! Although the pet is higher, you are continually pushed up the hate list with the taunting.
With the increased hate pets made thanks to the changes a while back, they can generate insane hate, though not as bad as when the orginal pet aggro code was put in.

When the pet dies, with taunt on, BAM! you're on top of the hate list and get *squished*. if the person on top of the hate list dies, 9/10 YOU'RE the next one to get *squished*.
hence you put taunt OFF on any high lvl mobs.
Another way you can see this is if you chain cast pets. Say the Allizeswaur, by time your on 4th or 5th pet, no WAY will he give a hoot about ANYTHING but eating YOUR a*s :> All the hate from those pets bumps you ballistic aggro.

I remember when they put the pet hate code in (think sit aggro was same patch?) Me and another mage in Kael set pet in as we always did, sitting down, taunt off..*YOU HAVE BEEN SUMMONED*, we got stomped. All we had done was set pet liek we did hundreds of times before. but pets generated nutsoid aggro...which hit us.
So you put pet taunt off, wait for others to aggro mob, then you get little aggro, less you start hard nuking. Generally on a hig lvl mob I'll use right click nukes or small ordinary nukes from quite early, mage small nukes of 600hp or less generate very little aggro (again I know this from direct experience, change from using Shock of Swords to Lava Bolt or Shock of Steel is dramatic, 600hp -> 800+ hp).

So start of a big fight mana is not a worry, you are FM usually, some small nukes mana is replenished.

mages dont get aggro very much for another reason: you aggro you *die* or get stomped. No skins, hp buffs or heals, so you learn to be *very* careful, or die a lot if your a twit :>

Redorious
Archmage
karana

Quelm
07-26-2002, 11:45 PM
Druid nukes are pretty good. I think things like aggro reduction, crit percentages and situations that reward nuke damage would be more of a boon than bigger nukes.

In the AA arena, I'd like to hang on to SCRM thanks :) NR, regrowth, thorns, glades/cabbage and an occasional strength buff or two are all boosted by Reinforcement Mastery. 2 of our class abilities that *could* be adjusted are Quick Direct Damage (currently we have a 3/6/9 point option for reducing cast time on nukes) and Enhanced Root (a really, really poor use of AA points). Spell Casting Subtlety would be cool, as would Fury Mastery, *if* it is determined that druids need help as nukers. Quick DD could become a useful skill, should we start to see more "caster-friendly mobs":

Formula for a caster-friendly mob:
High AC or some other form of partial melee immunity
Low hps
Moderate to low resists
High damage output, mix of spell and melee damage, some AEs

Given the choice between the ongoing balancing nightmare that percentage nukes would be, and a zone with more caster-friendly mobs as described above, I'd take the new zone.

Mobs with high damage output could do two things: increase the need for quick, direct healing, and increase the need for quick damage. Mobs with extremely high AC would reward parties with some magical nuking abilities. Mobs with a healthy amount of spell damage (or abilities not tied to melee procs) would reduce the effectiveness of slow. Mobs with moderate resists might reward parties capable of applying resist debuffs quickly, much in the same way that moderate damage output mobs reward parties with a competent slower.

A dungeon with a mix of melee-friendly and caster-friendly monsters would be a lot of fun, IMO. Casters could go nuts on mobs that would tear the party apart otherwise, while the melees could grind out the battles with the traditional low damage, higher hitpoint mobs. Hybrids would also have fun placing their nukes wisely. A couple 2500+ crits would be a real cause for celebration*, and manaburn could be a lifesaver.

Relative to other classes our nukes are fine, IMO. Nukes in general aren't very good at providing sustained damage (partly a mana problem, partly an aggro problem for some casters). Current melee abilities vs. mob avoidance/mitigation in most cases render casters inable to significantly outdamage their melee buddies even in short battles.

-Quelm, Hierophant
Drunken Tsunami, Terris-Thule

*: 400! dps over the course of a 12 second fight, as opposed to an average druid's ~40 dps over the course of a 10+ minute battle

Fayne Dethe
07-27-2002, 12:35 AM
In my prior post, I was just pointing out the only remaining roles for druids are nuking and healing in raids and grouping. The much vaunted other abilities have been so diluted and made worthless over the various expansions - spells given to other classes, spells put on items, spells made completely obselete by other classes, AA abilities, etc. Let's see I am a buffer?? In Luclin content, I buff nearly zero, not even PotC is wanted aside from a few wizards every once in a while. Fire/cold resist arent needed. Druid debuffs make little difference such as disjunction - the low damage that melee do on some luclin mobs is not primarly due to a high AC but high damage mitigation.

All thats really left for druids to do on raids is to backup heal when needed and nuke. However, 5 druids dont even make up for one cleric casting CH and this has always been the case ever since CH became the norm (post kunark). Druids used to be able to keep up some with wizard damage and have been the 2nd best nukers in game with mages around the same without a pet. But now, druids have fallen way behind without any desirable skills to make up for it (druid heals still very weak). Druids dont need manaburn or a higher damaging nuke to regain balance. Take out AA abilities and the druid/wizard spell comparison is about on par, especially with Rend 2 finally dropping off more mobs than THO (remember Moonfire used to not drop at ALL aside from 1 or 2 people across all servers who somehow got it). I still stick by my earlier suggestion - make a toned down version of spell casting fury mastery for druids (and give to mages too for that matter). It could be a single 9 pt mastery skill similar to spell casting mastery reinforcement.

Scirocco
07-27-2002, 09:07 AM
Why tone SCFM down? Doing so would drop druids and mages further behind wizards than they are without AA skills taken into account.

If druids and mages are in the proper balance with wizards at 60 without AA skills, then giving all 3 classes the same AA nuking skills will keep them in balance. No need to "tone it down."

Fayne Dethe
07-27-2002, 02:55 PM
The only reason I asked for a toned down version is that wizards in general would go rabid at the thought of any other class getting full fledged spell casting fury mastery, even though that skill totally imbalances the nuking classes. I agree Scirocco, the nuking classes were appropriately balanced before AA abilities, so it would make the most sense to give equal AA abilities to keep the same balance (not considering Manaburn as that is a total separate issue and Druids DONT want it ;p). So my suggestion to help druids/mages along would give a lesser version of SCFM that wizards would not have much reason to complain about. The typical reply is that "wizards only nuke", but druid skills have been given away, diluted, or made obsolete as I pointed out in other posts. If you compare both classes, we both have alot of useless or only semi-useful spell lines - uber pets haha, buffing? well druids dont have much anymore and wizards have spellshield /yawn. We both get stuff like roots/snare/evacs, not that they have much use on raids although translocates are very nice to get people out. Anyway, druids have not offered much to raiding other than nuking after initially doing quick heals to get the CH cycle going. However, nuking has fallen alot behind due to lack of mastery and some sort of upgrade would really help even if it isnt full fledged mastery.

Scirocco
07-27-2002, 03:06 PM
The only reason I asked for a toned down version is that wizards in general would go rabid at the thought of any other class getting full fledged spell casting fury mastery, even though that skill totally imbalances the nuking classes. I agree Scirocco, the nuking classes were appropriately balanced before AA abilities, so it would make the most sense to give equal AA abilities to keep the same balance (not considering Manaburn as that is a total separate issue and Druids DONT want it ;p).

At this point I don't care too much if other folks, regardless of class, don't want druids to be restored or kept at their relative positions. I am willing to have a rational, reasoned discussion with anybody of any class (as you can see with the healing thread), but I am done with appeasement of rabid whatevers. Any improvment to druid nuking is going to cause rabid wizards to come screaming, if they already are so inclined. What do you do with a rabid dog? Right....:)

Moreover, it really doesn't matter what the rabid whatevers think. All that matters is what Verant thinks, in the end. They're the ones making the decisions.

That's why we need to stand up and defend our logic. The logic is inescapable. If druid and wizard nuking are in proper balance pre-AA skills, then both classes ought to get the exact same nuking AA skills to maintain that balance. Especially since wizards already have a base crit at lower levels and manaburn. There is no reason for druids to back off on getting equal AA skill treatment.

So, your choice....are you a wolf, or a wolfskin rug? ;)

Oldoaktree
07-27-2002, 06:34 PM
Class balance is DEFINITELY going to piss some people off no matter what.

It by definition is a change of the status quo. Those happy (or relatively happy) with current relative power will be angry or threatened. No matter how good a wall of words they make though, being relatively stronger will always mean they are first pick no matter what is done with druids. All the carrying on about druids getting too "close" falls a little flat for me. And worrying about who will feel threatened? No matter what happens someone will. If you talk about nukes, wizards/mages say "no you need healing." If you talk about healing, clerics/pallys say "no you need nuking!" What OTHER classes say I listen to and think about, but it does not make up my mind for me.

I hope that druids come out of this process more in line with our older position...where sacrificing being best at something meant that we were pretty good in a couple things. But I am a bit jaded (have not quite put that Bitter under my tag sig yet because probably I should use the word Radical instead hehe).

There WILL be sturm and drang, there WILL be bitter tearful broadsides by members of various classes, there WILL be general bitchiness. The question is simply who is going to be doing it and about what.

Znail vh
07-27-2002, 07:17 PM
There isnt any inescapable logic for giving druids SCFM. There is a question in there, and the answer is no. Druids and Wizards is not in proper balance pre-AA. The AA skills help some to fix it thou. I wonder if anyone has any oppinion of an AA skill for casters that makes them as good healers as druids?

Scirocco
07-27-2002, 08:57 PM
Druids and Wizards is not in proper balance pre-AA.

Good enough. Explain yourself. I presume you think druids nuke too well at 60, not including the AA skills. If it's simply the fact that you don't think druids should be tied for second-best nuker, and thus disagree with the balance from levels 1 to 60, just say so and we can move on from there.

Znail vh
07-28-2002, 02:11 AM
Hmm, I actualy disagree with that druids should be tied second best nukers. I dont have a problem with druids being somewhat better then magicians, like things are now. Magician pet more then make up for small diffrences in damage. But back to wizards and druids.

Druids and wizards share several abbilities. The main abbility of wizards are damage. Druids share that and have healing in addition to that. Discounting damage and healing so are the spells and abbilities left for druids at least equal to the wizards excluding damage. You can argue that point if you want. But if that is true then wizards damage should be worth as much as druid damage and healing.

The problem now is that the actual efficiency diffrence between wizards and druids are pretty small. For instance, giving druids access to SCFM will make it possible for a druid with AA skills to nuke better then a wizard without. So the question about an AA skill for wizards to heal as well as a druid isnt just a joke as nuking better then druids is what wizards get instead of healing.

Scirocco
07-28-2002, 05:06 PM
For instance, giving druids access to SCFM will make it possible for a druid with AA skills to nuke better then a wizard without.

Sorry, I don't buy this statement. A druid with SCFM still wouldn't be close to being able to nuke like a wizard. Prove it.

Firemynd
07-28-2002, 05:06 PM
For instance, giving druids access to SCFM will make it possible for a druid with AA skills to nuke better then a wizard without.

Yes, that's entirely possible, and entirely logical.

THINK about what AA actually IS, please.
Alernate Advancement. It is a way of advancing your character's abilities and power. We are given "titles" as the indicator of reward instead of our level number changing. Otherwise, the difference is that AAXP improves the performance of our existing spells/abilities, instead of adding new ones.

For practical purposes, a 60th level druid with AAXP is "higher level" than a 60th level druid without AAXP. Should we compare the AA druid to the non-AA druid and cry foul because the AA druid can nuke better? Of course not. That would be like saying it isn't fair that a 50th level wizard can nuke better than a 40th level wizard.

By the same token, a 60th level druid will likely nuke "better" than a 50th level wizard. Given SCFM, 60th level AA druid might even nuke better than a 60th level non-AA wizard... depends on whether that druid has spent his points (mini levels) in AA ablities which improve nuke spells, and depends on which spells said wizard has been able to scribe.

Yes, the wizard as a class is the king of direct damage nukes, but AA is a form of character level which DOES -- and SHOULD -- be a factor in the amount of damage, resists, and overall performance.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress...

~Firemynd

frisleafshadow
07-28-2002, 05:22 PM
Druid heals are a joke. Even the 10% increaes helps little. Exp groups, solo, and the short time for patch heals.


Talking about heals outside of clerics is like talking about slow outside of shammys. Thanks for the 2 nails hammer, I still can't build shelter with it.


SCFM won't put druids above wizards in damage output. But it will make druids more desireable by increaseing our DPS on raids.

As is, there's no reason to have a druid on raids. A cleric would be better if a druid's patch healing, and a Wizard would be better if he's blasting.

No one wants Potg anymore, how often do we cast seasons? I'm at the point that VI should release a single player version of EQ, because that's basicly what the Druid class is.

Aidon Rufflefuzz
07-29-2002, 06:45 AM
Aidon,

Pets, on large mobs, do NOT reduce your aggro

On large mobs Mages don't have to worry about aggro...they're busy giving birth to rods. One of the few essential roles to any raid, which doesn't actually create aggro ;)

Aidon Rufflefuzz
07-29-2002, 06:49 AM
So, your choice....are you a wolf, or a wolfskin rug? ;)

o/` Do you here the people sing? Singing the song of Bitter Druids. o/`

Viva La Revolucion!

Scirocco
07-29-2002, 07:10 AM
Let's leave the ubernukes of Garrison's and Elnerik's out of the equation for the moment.

Wizard top nuke then is Sunstrike, with 1615 damage. Compare that to Moonfire, with 1150 damage.

Compare the effects of AAXP skills on these spells, with SCF3 giving a 7% chance of a 200% nuke, and SCFM3 giving a 14% chance (total).

Here is the "Expected Damage" per cast:

Moonfire:
No AAXP: 1150
SCF3: 1230

Sunstrike:
No AAXP: 1615
SCF3: 1728
SCFM3: 1841

So, a druid with SCF3 still does much less expected damage per cast with Moonfire than a wizard casting Sunstrike with no AAXP at all (I've even left out the 4% innate criti that wizards would have, which would boost the 1615 up a bit).

What would Moonfire be with SCFM3? 1311, is all. Still BELOW a wizard with no AAXP casting Sunstrike.

Wildfire is 1024 damage, and thus even worse.

Garrisons and Elneriak's push wizards even farther up the scale, leaving druids in the dust. Garrison's has fire based damage of 2100, while Elneriak's is magic based 1890.

I've gone back at looked at our nukes vs. wizard nukes. We've varied greatly in power, from about 80% to 90% when druids first get each new DD (as compared to the wizard DDs), but dropping to 50% or so when wizards get their interim upgrades (druids get a DoT instead of a nuke). Since we're past the point of alternating spells in this way (we're all stuck at 60), I've been using 66-70% as a rough average.

If Verant doesn't go for percentage nukes, then druids ought to get at least one more fire-based nuke, at about 66% of the power of GSS. Same rareity, etc., of course.

Znail vh
07-29-2002, 11:39 AM
You forgot a few important numbers so I will help you out with including them. Personaly when I cast spells I use up mana. One of the most important limitations to how many times I can cast a spell is this mana.

Moonfire:
Mana cost 320
No AAXP: 1150, dam/mana 3.6
SCF3: 1230, dam/mana 3.8

Sunstrike:
Mana cost 450
No AAXP: 1615 dam/mana 3.6
SCF3: 1728 , dam/mana 3.8
SCFM3: 1841, dam/mana 4.1

There is actualy a little rounding off here and moonfire is better then sunstrike without AAXP. Anyway, by all means, change it so that druid nukes are 66% as good as wizard nukes. That would give you a cost of 485 mana for moonfire.

Talyena Trueheart
07-29-2002, 12:16 PM
You forgot a few important numbers so I will help you out with including them.

As did you. You left out wizard crits which will make sunstrike even more mana efficient. You left out the dps which (without wizard crits) is 170 for sunstrike compared to 132 for moonfire. You left out that druids have no way to decrease aggro. And most importantly, you left out that the comparison is between the druids very best nuke in the latest expansion, while the sunstrike was the wizards best nuke two expansions ago.

Scirocco
07-29-2002, 12:30 PM
True, don't forget the recast time on druid nukes, that makes them slower than the wizard nukes.


Anyway, by all means, change it so that druid nukes are 66% as good as wizard nukes. That would give you a cost of 485 mana for moonfire.

OK, good enough. The wizard's best fire nuke is Garrison's, which does the following:

2100 damage (fire)
540 mana
8 sec cast
instant recast

Here's the appropriate 66% druid nuke:

1400 damage (fire)
388 mana (this used the Moonfire damage/mana ratio of 3.6; if using Garrison's, cost would be 324)
8 sec cast
instant recast

This is definitely an improvement to Moonfire.

And to soothe the savage mages, I would think that mages would get something similar as well.

Znail vh
07-29-2002, 12:50 PM
Quote by Talyena:
------------------------------------------------------------
You left out wizard crits which will make sunstrike even more mana efficient.
------------------------------------------------------------
AA crits was included, but I guess you are talking about the inate wizard around 1% chance of getting plus 0-50% bonus damage. This only adds 0.5% and isnt exactly noticeable, but I can include it later if you realy want me to.

Quote by Talyena:
------------------------------------------------------------
You left out the dps which (without wizard crits) is 170 for sunstrike compared to 132 for moonfire.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, DPS is interesting, far more interesting the actual damage of the spells. Incidentaly the DPS of moonfire needs to be reduced by 20 to reach the goal of 66%.

Quote by Talyena:
------------------------------------------------------------
You left out that druids have no way to decrease aggro.
------------------------------------------------------------
I also left out that druids are a priest class and can heal.

Quote by Talyena:
------------------------------------------------------------
And most importantly, you left out that the comparison is between the druids very best nuke in the latest expansion, while the sunstrike was the wizards best nuke two expansions ago.
------------------------------------------------------------
Actualy, I did nothing of the kind. Scirocco picked the spells to compare and I just added some more numbers.

Quote by Scirocco:
------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the appropriate 66% druid nuke:

1400 damage (fire)
388 mana (this used the Moonfire damage/mana ratio of 3.6; if using Garrison's, cost would be 324)
8 sec cast
instant recast
------------------------------------------------------------
By all means, use the ratio from Garrisons for your 66% wizard nuke. That would give you a mana cost of 545.

Talyena Trueheart
07-29-2002, 01:02 PM
I guess then you wouldn't mind druids having a manaburn that is 66% as efficient as the wizard manaburn, for 66% of the alt exp points, with 66% of the cast time, and a 66% reduced refresh time.

Znail vh
07-29-2002, 01:24 PM
Actualy, giving another class manaburn would be an upgrade for wizards as it would make it easier to get enuff people to burn something down. I think complaints are likely to come from other directions thou.

Aside from that so can I guess from your somewhat random use of % that you dont quite agree with my calculations for nukes.

Lets take a couple of simple examples:
A nuke that does 300 damage, cost 100 mana and take 3 seconds to cast. What would be the stats of a nuke that are 50% better? Simple, it would do 450 damage and be exactly the same else.

A melee class does 50DPS when fighting.
For another class to be 50% better they have to do 75DPS.
There are no mana cost or casting time for melee to confuse things.

Fayne Dethe
07-29-2002, 01:45 PM
When doing comparisons, if you are only going to use Sunstrike you should only use druid pre-luclin spells such as wildfire that is 1024 damage with a 5.8? sec cast time and costs 320 mana. Dont forget dragonsbane/giantsbane either if doing pre-luclin stuff ;p. Now for Luclin comparisons, only about half of druids tend to have moonfire. Also, it doesnt seem to be dropping as often as it used to when the spell was initally changed. Secondly, EER is now starting to drop off more mobs than just THO so a comparison to EER and Moonfire would be more appropriate (and THO was never a difficult mob to begin with unlike Emperor with Garrisons ;p). Even Garrisons is starting to become more common with Emperor generally being killed everytime he pops now on most servers, albiet his drop rate for spells seems to be kinda strange - some servers get the spell alot while others have only gotten 1 ;p.

Znail vh
07-29-2002, 02:03 PM
Once again, it wasnt me that picked the spells to compare. But I agree with the new changes so will EER probobly by almost as common as moonfire after some time passes. So by popular demand the numbers for EER (incl innate wiz crit):

Moonfire:
Mana cost 320
No AAXP: 1150, dam/mana 3.6 (99% of EER), DPS 185(73% of EER)

Elnerick's Electrical Rending
Mana cost 525
No AAXP: 1899, dam/mana 3.6, DPS 253

Scirocco
07-29-2002, 04:07 PM
1400 damage (fire)
388 mana (this used the Moonfire damage/mana ratio of 3.6; if using Garrison's, cost would be 324)
8 sec cast
instant recast
------------------------------------------------------------
By all means, use the ratio from Garrisons for your 66% wizard nuke. That would give you a mana cost of 545.


Your logic now baffles me. If you are going to use the ratio from Garrisons, then the cost of the 66% druid nuke is 324, not 545.

Or perhaps you were saying that not only should the damage be 66%, but the damage/mana ratio should be 66% of Garrion's? That's double-dipping, my friend. What you propose is not a 66% druid nuke, but a 66% * 66% = 44% druid nuke. Nice try...:)

BTW, interesting observation on manaburn. While I don't particularly want a form of it, a 50% to 66% manaburn for druids to form MB packs would be interesting.

The Moonfire/EER ratio of 73% (based on DPS, apparently) seems fine to me. I'll use 73% as my base number for the future.

Znail vh
07-29-2002, 07:25 PM
Quote by Scirocco:
------------------------------------------------------------
Or perhaps you were saying that not only should the damage be 66%, but the damage/mana ratio should be 66% of Garrion's? That's double-dipping, my friend. What you propose is not a 66% druid nuke, but a 66% * 66% = 44% druid nuke. Nice try...:)
------------------------------------------------------------
No, its not double dipping. I gave some simple examples to explain this above. So here is another example:

Non-clerics recently get the 10% healing penalty removed. How big is this healing improvement? The answer is 11% going from 90% of max to 100% of spdat value. But by calculating like Scirocco does the improvment would be 22% as both the max heal and the healing ratio went up.

Oldoaktree
07-29-2002, 07:32 PM
Improvement percentages are irrelevant.

The discussion is about relative strength compared to the primary class for a given ability. That is about the relative power in the end result, not about how much they change as they are brought into balance.

I don't follow your point. If one improves by 22% to the ponit that you are 65% as powerful as the primary class, you are still at your 65% target.

It also appears to me to be double dipping to say that a druid to be relatively weaker than the primary class must have lower DPS and lower mana/hp at the same time. Scirocco's math seems sound to me...65% x 65% would be a spell that was only 42.25% as effective as the main class's.

Talyena Trueheart
07-29-2002, 07:40 PM
You are indead double dipping. You stated that the mana efficiency should be 66% of the wizard nuke, and the dps should be 66% of the wizard nuke. By lowering the damage, you lower both the dps and mana efficiency. If you only wanted to make one change, you would leave the same damage and cast time and just increase the mana cost by 50%. That would make the spell 66% as effecient. Or, you could raise the cast time by 50% which would lower the dps to 66%.

frisleafshadow
07-29-2002, 07:50 PM
Moonfire:
Mana cost 320
No AAXP: 1150, dam/mana 3.6 (99% of EER), DPS 185(73% of EER)

Elnerick's Electrical Rending
Mana cost 525
No AAXP: 1899, dam/mana 3.6, DPS 253


66% of the DPS of Elnerics for Moonfire would be 167. 66% of the max damage would be 1253.

You are using 2 numbers to define 66% but its more complex then that.

To get get 66% of max damage is easy. to get 66 of dps, just up the casting time of Elnericks by... I don't have the casting time on my screen, someone else do the math.

Do you want to reduce the mana effeciency to 66% of that Elnericks too?
How about the resist rate to 66% as well?

66% is one value, define what you think should be 66% of your spell.


We just want to play our characters too, or would you rather a druid camp and log in a wizard account of a guild member who's not online?

Druids have a smaller manapool (based on similar equiped wizards). But we can buff? How often do Druids buff on raids? We have more ac/hp? Does that make a difference on raids, does when we exp but thats not where druids want a change.

We don't want a more mana effecient spell. We don't want a new ability. We don't want to be a handicap.

Why have more then 3 clerics on a raid? silly question.
Why have more then 3 of any class on a raid? more damage
once you get what you need (tank, buffers, clerics, whatever), its comeing up w/ enough DPS to kill a given target before you can't keep the MT alive, more or less. So why bring more then 3 Druids on ANY raid when a cleric or wizard could better fill the role?


I'm sure people have seem me mention this before, but I'm gonna begin to feedback/petition this every day: don't upgrade Druids anymore, I just want a single player version of EQ. Thats where the Druid Vision lies. (you pick the deffinition of lies :) )

Znail vh
07-29-2002, 08:19 PM
My deffinition of 66% is fairly straight forward. If the same time and effort (mana) is spent, then the resulting damage should be 66%.
Getting 66% damage at 66% of the mana cost means that after all the mana have been spent then the damage is equal.

Shayariel
07-29-2002, 08:21 PM
Hmm, I didn't read all replies, but I see Druids in this post ask for 2/3 (66%) nukes of Wizards, in other posts they ask for a 50% heal and such.

I posted it somewhere else I think, but in the melee patches e.g. Paladins were made 80% Warriors in tanking and damage output. After that we could finally claim to be balanced. Considering the very high healing power of Clerics, I'd say we get to 20% of that as well with HWoP, CC and LoH.

If versatility is "might of skilltrees divided by number of shared skills", e.g. if you are a mix of Cleric and Warrior and can heal 50% of a Cleric and tank 50% as good like a Warrior, it is completely useless.
So a class that is defined by versatility must have all those skills at a degree of 80% of the class they have it from.
Example:
Druids get
- heals/buffs (specialist: Cleric)
- nukes/AoEs (specialist: Wizard)
- debuffs (own spell line here)
- DoTs (specialist: either Shaman or Necro in this context)
- other utility spells (don't need to be touched, either are clickywise attainable for others or a 80%-rule wouldn't make sense)

so let us reduce it on those areas where Druids share something with clearly defined specialists:
- heals/buffs (specialist: Cleric)
- nukes/AoEs (specialist: Wizard)
- DoTs (specialist: lets say Shaman as they are priests too)


Heals

Druids allready come close to the heal efficiency of Cleric's direct heals, not in HoTs and not in CH, which are more the areas where the higher level game evolves around.
Turning CH (PC version) into a 100% heal wouldn't be a nerf since the effect would be the same, and would be technically possible (see: Mend). This would meen that a 80% heal allways heals 4 bubbles HP, not all except the 5th bubble.
This would clearly break the CH monopoly for xp groups and for sure for lesser CH chain raids - which, by the way was the case in melee balance as well: the imporved tanking of knights broke the monopoly for Warriors in xp groups and in lesser raids, even for lesser disc def mobs.

Nukes/AoEs

There Druids need a 80% efficiency of Wizards, which is either allready attained or surpassed a bit. Last case would mean a small scaling down.

DoTs

Pretty fine balanced for Druids in my eyes. The only thing I don't like about DoTs is that they each can be cast only once on a mob, i.e. one Druid/Shaman/Necro can cover that for his class, which sucks especially for Necros as their dmg is mostly based on DoTs.


Possible other solution I read on this board allready

Giving Druids enhanced debuffs for dmg output of mobs similar to the Shaman's Slow line would be decent. In combination with a damageshield it would really be a nice option for groups as well as raids - and if it stacks with slow it would be completely balancing this nice class.
Imagine a quad hitting mob that hits for 400 per hit. Debuffed for 70% less dmg (to keep inline with slow) would cut his output to about 100 dmg per blow, which would be deployed so often that the DS would kick in and the Shaman can think about not slowing but rather increasing DPS with his DoTs even more - some change for that class as well...
GREAT idea, in my eyes


Shayariel Arrowkeeper
Crusader of Tunare
Adamantine Kinship
Mithaniel Marr Server

Znail vh
07-29-2002, 08:25 PM
Another simple example:
A worker gets 10$ for each hour work.
To get a 50% raise he wants 15$ for each hour work.
His employer then pays him 15$ for each 1 1/2 hour work.
Did he realy get a 50% raise?

WyteNK
07-29-2002, 08:37 PM
Shayariel, I like the idea. But, it appears very powerful on the outside. Of course, that can be tuned by playing with the numbers.

Very powerful because Damage Shields are unresistable. And it would stack with slow. If that much damage is mitigated (70 percent), I could see it being a very very short duration buff, ie: 6 seconds or 12 seconds. And the recast would be like 2-10 minutes. On the good side, it would make multiple Druids highly desirable.

Wyte Psycnosis <Ordo Malleus>
60 Dooid - Rallos Zek

Shayariel
07-29-2002, 08:57 PM
The dmg debuff would of course be instead of bigger healing improvements and would give Druids a role more comparable with Shamans than with Clerics. About "very powerfull" - what are Shamans now? They aren't yet overpowered but have one of the most vital roles on raids while still being one of the best solo classes in the highlevel game.
If stacking with slow the combo with damageshields would loose some power, if not stacking, RLs could choose from slow or output reduction. A 70% slow isn't anything else than 70% output reduction anyways though.

As for heals and xp groups: Clerics can handle that just with their raw healing power, Shamans can simulate a situation where less healing is needed with slow, Druids need either a role similar to Clerics or equal to Shamans. And for raids stackability is needed else any role wouldn't improve any class or even virtually nerf another.

Shay

P.S.: In my post I didn't yet go to any thought about any much needed / possible upgrade for Clerics. This class for sure needs something as well, though it either could be a toy as it was for Warriors in melee balance or a real second possible role - second to healing.

Talyena Trueheart
07-29-2002, 10:47 PM
Yes, DPS is interesting, far more interesting the actual damage of the spells. Incidentaly the DPS of moonfire needs to be reduced by 20 to reach the goal of 66%.

My deffinition of 66% is fairly straight forward. If the same time and effort (mana) is spent, then the resulting damage should be 66%.

You have stated that we should have 66% of the effeciency, and 66% of the dps. Those are two seperate things. Lets take your own example.

Another simple example:
A worker gets 10$ for each hour work.
To get a 50% raise he wants 15$ for each hour work.
His employer then pays him 15$ for each 1 1/2 hour work.
Did he realy get a 50% raise?

Lets take that same worker. He is making $10 an hour and working 40 hours a week. His employer says he needs to cut the payroll by 25%. So he pays cuts the worker back to $7.50 an hour for 30 hours a week. Of course, the worker didn't get a 25% cut, he just got nearly a 44% cut.

Now, if it is just efficiency you are worried about, you end up with a nuke something like this, 2100 damage, 810 mana, 8 second cast time. Or 1400 damage, 540 mana, 4.5 second cast time.

If dps is your concern (wizards being the masters of fast damage), then the spell would look like this, 2100 damage, 540 mana, 13.3 second cast time. Or, 1400 damage, 350 mana, 8 second cast time.

Or, if you want to average the two, you would end up with something like this, 1680 damage, 540 mana, 8 second cast time. That is 80% efficiency and 80% dps which is about a 64% total.

Right now, moonfire is 92% the mana efficiency of Garrison's and 64% of the dps. That makes it about 59% as good as Garrison's. The advanced aa skills that wizards get will widen that gap even more.

Znail vh
07-30-2002, 01:10 AM
Ok, will try to make a little example both clear and easy to understand. Lets make us one imaginary wizard and one druid. Now we give the wizard a nuke that does 200 damage, costs 100 mana and takes 5 seconds to cast, DPS(Damage Per Second) 40, DPM(Damage Per Mana) 2. Now we will give the druid a spell that does 100 damage, costs 100 mana and takes 5 seconds to cast, DPS 20(50% of wizard), DPM 1(50% of wizard).
Now lets our wizard and druid cast their spells 10 times each. This will take the same time for both and cost the same mana for both. If those that thinks DPS and DPM are rcummulative then now so should the druid have done 25% of the wizards damage. Lets see what realy happened.
Our wizard gets 10*200=2000 damage.
Our druid gets 10*100=1000 damage.
Oh, 1000 is 50% of 2000, how supricing...

Now I wonder if we shall continue to argue basic math or if someone wants to discuss class balance instead?

Mikar
07-30-2002, 01:19 AM
[qoute]
Right now, moonfire is 92% the mana efficiency of Garrison's and 64% of the dps. That makes it about 59% as good as Garrison's.
[/quote]

Erm, no. This means that the druid nuke is atleast 64% as good as the wizard nuke - and atmost 92% as good. (this is using your percentages at face value)

There is zero reason to multiply the percentages.

If the situation calls for fast damage regardless of manacost then its only 64% as good. The fact that the efficiency is 92% just means that your overall "value" gets higher than 64% if you also take efficiency into account - not lower.

What you do in a case like this is to weight the percentages - "average" them is you will. The worst aspect forms a lower bound - and only in a case where the other aspects are irrelevent is that attained. In most situation it will hence be a weighted average of Max hit, DPS and mana/dmg thats relevent.

You are then free to discuss the weights in different situations - but you simply cannot multiple the percentages with a straight face.

For an easy to understand example
Nuke1: 1000 dmg, 5 sec, 200 mana
Nuke2; 500 dmg, 5 sec, 200 mana.

So, Nuke2 is 50% max dmg, 50% dps and 50% mana efficiency. 50%*50%*50% = 12.5%..... I hope you see my point - Nuke2 isnt only 12.5% as good - its 50% as good - because nomatter which way you turn it - it performs 50% as well as Nuke1.

Another example:
Nuke 1: 100 dmg, 100 dps, 5:1 dmg/mana
Nuke 2: 80 dmg, 60 dps, 3.5:1 dmg/mana

Nuke 2 is then anywhere from 60% to 80% as "good" as nuke 1 - depending on which aspect you want to focus on. Its *not* 80%*60*70% = 33.6% as good.

Just consider what happens if you add more and more measures to the mix....

So, using your percentages - 64% and 92% - there is little doubt that this particular druid nukes is atleast 66% as good as the wizard nuke in question - and probably quite a bit more too.

That said - I think one main difference between druid and wizard is in clicky nukes. Those just help sustain wizards dps in many situations.

edit: Znail vh beat me to posting the example - I guess I will leave my as confirmation that others can see straight too :)

Scirocco
07-30-2002, 04:25 AM
Since worker analogies seem in vogue:

Case 1:
Worker A makes $10/hour, works 40 hours a week.
Worker B makes $5/hour, works 40 hours a week.

I think we all agree that in this case Worker B brings home a weekly paycheck of 200, while Worker A brings home 400. Worker B makes 50% of what Worker A gets.

Case 2:
Worker A makes $10/hr, works 40 hours a week.
Worker B makes $5/hr, but only is scheduled for 20 hours a week.

Worker B brings home 100, Worker A still makes 400. Worker B makes 25% of what Worker A makes. That's because he's making half the dollar/hour, and working only half the time: 50% * 50% = 25%.


The problem I see in the above discussion is that people are talking about different measures or variables. There are several being tossed around: total damage per cast, damage/mana, damage/second, cycle time.

When I tossed out 66% as a comparison of relative nuking power, I was looking at the total damage/cast. Since I assumed that the cycle time would be about the same, this means that DPS of the druid nuke would also be 66% of the wizard DPS. I also assumed that damage/mana ratios would keep the same relationship that they have had previously: i.e., druid damage/mana would be very close to the wizards.

Thus:

Cycle Time - same
Damage/Mana - very close
Total Damage/nuke - 66%
DPS - 66%


Now, what was thown in above was also an argument that the druid Damage/Mana ratio should also be 66% of the wizard, which would be a huge nerf to the current druid Damage/Mana ratio. Damage/Mana ratios should get better over time for all classes, so the druid Damage/Mana ratio for a new high level nuke should be at least as good as Moonfire.

Which is why I called it double-dipping. Druids would not only be at 66% of the damage (whether measured by damage/cast or DPS), but would also be at 66% of the mana efficiency (measured by damage/mana). Which is why, on a relative power scale, a nuke like this would drop a druid below 66%.

My approach is simple:

1. Determine top wizard nuke.
2. Give druids and mages a nuke with 66% of the max damage per cast, and with same cast time.
3. Calculate the mana required using the Damage/Mana ratio of the previous highest ranked nuke for druids and mages, respectively.

Mikar
07-30-2002, 06:01 AM
So, you want a druid dd thats

1: 1386 dmg (2100 * 66%)
2: 8 sec (Garrison is 8 sec)
3: 385 mana (1386/1150*320 from Moonfire)

dropping from the Emperor? Just trying to clarify that this is infact what you just described - *includingŲ it dropping only from the Emperor as thats an importent part of Garrisons.

That doesnt sound too terribly wishfull to me - but then I am just a cleric so nuking isnt my specialty.

Mikar
07-30-2002, 06:30 AM
If you look at level 50 instead:

Dru: 612 - 250 - 6.1
Wiz: 1120 - 400 - 8.0
so 55% - 63% - 76%

And at 60 - using the wiz nuke that only drops from the Emperor.
Dru: 1150 - 320 - 6.2
Wiz: 2100 - 540 - 8.0
so 55% - 59% - 78%

Hmm, same max damage, slightly better ratio, slightly worse cast time - all comparatively speaking. Doesnt look like much of a power loss there - infact it looks like a very slight power upgrade from 50 to 60. And thats using the Emperor only drop spell for wizards.

Now, if you wanted to talk about clicky nuke items - then thats another matter.

Maraulth Marquet
07-30-2002, 06:57 AM
If you want to nuke, become a wizard, druids are meant to be support classes. We do best at patch healing during raid encounters, not nuking.

Talyena Trueheart
07-30-2002, 07:30 AM
Okay, lets try explaining it this way.

If a wizard has a nuke that does 2000pts of damage for 400 mana in 10 seconds, and a druid has a nuke that does 2000pts of damage for 800 mana in 10 seconds. How mana druids does it take to equal that wizard?

If the druid has a nuke that does 2000pts of damage for 400 mana in 20 seconds, how many druids does it take to equal that wizard?

If the druid nuke is 2000pts of damage for 800 mana in 20 seconds, how many druids will it take to replace that wizard?

Or, to make it so a cleric can understand. How many more clerics would a rotation take if they doubled the mana cost of CH? How many more clerics would a rotation take if they doubled the cast time of CH? How many more clerics would a rotation take if they doubled the mana and the cast time of CH?

Oldoaktree
07-30-2002, 07:42 AM
Our wizard gets 10*200=2000 damage.
Our druid gets 10*100=1000 damage.
Oh, 1000 is 50% of 2000, how supricing...

Now I wonder if we shall continue to argue basic math or if someone wants to discuss class balance instead?

Not to argue basic math but the issue is that DPS is itself a derived factor. In the example above, you can also achieve the same result by changing the cast time or the reset time. Which, by the way, is how it works now...druid nukes are (mostly) slower than wizard ones.

SO you can have a druid that gets 10x100 =1000dmg...but takes 2x longer to do so than the wizard. Then, over the same period of time, a druid will only do 25% of the dmg of the wizard.

THAT is how it can be double dipping.

When people talk DPS in nuke terms, I would go out on a limb and say most people are thinking about cast and reset times primarily. Admitedly, it doesn't always work this way.

Scirocco
07-30-2002, 07:48 AM
Mikar, that's correct, more or less. Really, I mean 2/3 of a wizard (or 66.6667%), so the number I came up with for the druid nuke is 1400 damage, 388 mana. Roughly same difficulty or rareity to obtain as well.

Of course, that's just based on the status quo. What I proposed were percentage nukes, with an eye on PoP and beyond.

Mikar
07-30-2002, 08:12 AM
Talyena

That depends.

"If a wizard has a nuke that does 2000pts of damage for 400 mana in 10 seconds, and a druid has a nuke that does 2000pts of damage for 800 mana in 10 seconds. How mana druids does it take to equal that wizard?"

If its a single fight where neither will be oom. 1 druid per wizard. If the druid will be oom at some point: upto 2 druids per wizard. If its a long fight: fully 2 druid per wizard.

"If the druid has a nuke that does 2000pts of damage for 400 mana in 20 seconds, how many druids does it take to equal that wizard?"

If its a short fight where neither goes oom. 2 druids per wizard. If the wizard goes oom: less than 2 druids per wizard. If its an extremely long fight: downto 1 druid per wizard.

"If the druid nuke is 2000pts of damage for 800 mana in 20 seconds, how many druids will it take to replace that wizard?"

Now you really think I have to say 4 druids per wizard, right? Well, thats just not the case.

2 druids per wizard. If the fight is short enough that mana doesnt matter: 2 druids. If the fight is so long that casting time doesnt matter: 2 druids. If the fight is anywhere inbetween: 2 druids per wizard.

In 60 seconds 1 wizard will have done 12k dmg for 2400 mana - and regened mana worth for 1 person "medding".

In 60 seconds 2 druids will have done 12k dmg for 4800 mana - and regened mana worth for 2 persons "medding". The druids have hence used twice the mana - but since they are 2 they also have twice the mana and twice the mana regen - so that cancels out.

If the one wizard takes 4 mins to med that back up - then the 2 druids take the same time to do so - again because they are 2 to do the medding.

The exception to this is mod rods (well, and the minimal effect of having to buff 2 people instead of 1) - I readily admit that. If we take mod rods into account the single wizard will do better than 2 druids. But, unless he uses *ALOT* of rods he wont be as good as 3 druids using the same number of rods - and nomatter what he will never be as good as 4 druids using the same rods.


You just have to consider that the 3 primary traits (dmg, mana and time) are not equally important. Dmg changes (dmg, dps and efficiency) while mana only changes (efficiency) and time only changes (dps). And since max hit, dps and efficiency all have their moments of glory this means that dmg is much more important than either mana or time to cast.

Infact, what we are arguing here is a direct consequence of that.

Oldoaktree
07-30-2002, 08:26 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to nuke, become a wizard, druids are meant to be support classes. We do best at patch healing during raid encounters, not nuking.


Much as I am an alteration druid I have to disagree. Assuming a full bar of mana for a given druid is 4000, a druid can dish out 14,950 in dmg from a full bar of mana using moonfire assuming little mana regen. THe same druid would heal for 9450.

We nuke far better than we heal.

A lot of us are healers though because there are not enough clerics to go around. One cleric can heal as well as about 3 druids, and if you have the clerics be in the CH rot and also to be free to heal other groups, druids are mostly nuking. And yes we are better at it than we are at healing...though neither ability is really overwhelming.

If the druid can get good regen and has access to mod rods etc, the disparity between healing and nuking only grows greater.

Also this did not take into account Specialization which would push those numbers farther. An evoc spec druid would have a much bigger disparity between nuking an healing, and an alteration spec druid would be closer in healing and nuking though nuking would still be stronger than healing.

Scirocco
07-30-2002, 08:46 AM
If you want to nuke, become a wizard, druids are meant to be support classes. We do best at patch healing during raid encounters, not nuking.


*shakes head*

Shameful, a druid getting to level 60 without knowing what their class can do. The poor laddie probably never hasn't cast a nuke for ages, much less experienced the thrill of a crit. Yet another druid suffering from Alteration sickness....;)

(Interestingly, the same language could more appropriately be used for healing, since druids are better nukers than healers: "If you want to heal, be a cleric.")

Oldoaktree
07-30-2002, 08:57 AM
...and if you want people who are much better at a given skill to criticize you for either being too strong in it or hoping to improve it at all, be a druid...

Shamans saying druids solo too well...

Wizards and mages saying druids nuke too well/do too much dmg....

Clerics saying druids heal well enough or only need modest upgrades...

Druids-- the NIMBY-licious class!

frisleafshadow
07-30-2002, 12:43 PM
"If you want to nuke, become a wizard, druids are meant to be support classes. We do best at patch healing during raid encounters, not nuking."


best patch healing? are you serious? a cleric can patch heal better. A pally can better heal a group on AE damage.

Oh, maybe you ment the best we can do is patch heal, not we are the best class for the patch heal role. So our best is not as good as someone else.

Quelm
07-30-2002, 03:11 PM
Let's just give druids a nuke with equal damage, 66% of the cast time, 66% of the mana cost and call it even? :)

One thing I'd love to see is low-hate nukes. Something that hits for, say, 1350 damage, but only *feels* like 750. "Mob_X tells you, 'hohoho that didn't hurt a bit' and continues pounding on the tank" As druids so far have very few options for hate-management, this'd be a welcome adjustment. Currently, wizards have two advantages in the hate-management department - concussion, and better crits. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that spells have a hard-coded hate value, based on their max damage, hence, crits do more damage per point of hate) Perhaps wizards could remain masters of fast, efficient damage, while druids could take over damage that nobody notices.

During caster balancing, maybe someone could fix the problem with rain spells. If Blizzard could land a killing blow, it'd be more useful. With good cold debuffs, we'd have a 1470 rain for 335 mana. Currently, the higher general resist rate on Blizzard coupled with the automatic resist near death usually makes Moonfire a better choice, despite a significantly lower maximum damage.

-Quelm

Cassea
08-02-2002, 07:21 AM
Some interesting history:

GZ INTERVIEW ON WIZARDS, NOVEMBER 23, 1999

Wizards get what is advertised - the most powerful direct damage in the game. For this, they give up a lot of other things.

A Magician with a pet can outdamage a Wizard. A Necromancer with DoT's and a Skeleton will eventually outdamage a Wizard. However, with just direct damage, a Wizard will outdamage everybody, hands down. They do more damage in less time then any other class. They also get a few nifty things that most other classes don't - Teleport being one of the major ones. Wizards are good at DD, AoE, Teleport, Self protection (shieldskin, resistant skin, etc), Root and the occasional stun.

Wizards also get 3 types of damage spells (magic, fire and cold), which means that they can effect almost every monster in every zone of the game. They also get their DD spells upgraded every level - no other class gets that. This means that the Wizard always has access to their most powerful spell at every spell rank.

Znail vh
08-03-2002, 05:21 AM
Quote by Cassea from another thread:
------------------------------------------------------------
On raids Druids cast the very same direct heal that you do as that level 60 heal is a POS. It's two heals in one with twice the mana cost.
------------------------------------------------------------
How come that its a huge advantage for wizards to do more damage in a single spell, but its POS to suggest that its an advantage for druids to heal more in a single spell?

Also consider these two quotes.

Quote by Cassea (wich is a quote itself):
------------------------------------------------------------
However, with just direct damage, a Wizard will outdamage everybody, hands down.
------------------------------------------------------------

Quote by Scirroco:
------------------------------------------------------------
When I tossed out 66% as a comparison of relative nuking power, I was looking at the total damage/cast. Since I assumed that the cycle time would be about the same, this means that DPS of the druid nuke would also be 66% of the wizard DPS. I also assumed that damage/mana ratios would keep the same relationship that they have had previously: i.e., druid damage/mana would be very close to the wizards.
------------------------------------------------------------

Cassea
08-03-2002, 10:52 AM
Because doing more damage quicker is important when you have to start nuking on a large raid when the mob is under 50%.

If Druids were to start healing only when the player to be healed was under 50% the entire party would wipe.

Healing is done the entire fight - Nuking at the end of a fight.

When you are a group healer it's all about conserving mana. You are burning mana the entire fight against AOE mobs or even if not AOE trying to direct heal each person in your party separetly becuase we have no Group Heal.

When you are nuking you have half the fight to either med (or if you must stand) or let C3/POTG ect... regen you and you are not expending your mana.

See the difference and I am in the healing camp - I'm fine with our nukes provided Verant stops holding our spells hostage so that only the uber guilds can obtain them. Trickle down does not work when the guild that can obtain them sell them for so much plat that the average Druid cannot afford to by them.

The day Verant puts all these rare spells on a vendor without saying boo is the day I will LMAO when the greedy guild stockpiling these spells suddenly have worthless spells.

Znail vh
08-03-2002, 11:17 AM
Why start nuking at 50% if you have a problem with casting time? Why not start as soon as tanks have established enuff aggro that you wont be summoned? Then just keep casting for the rest of the battle. If you get aggro then casting time is not to long after all. If you run out of mana, then casting time is not a problem.

The main reason to wait until 50% is that half the battle is usualy more then enuff to burn up all mana, for a wizard that is. But a druid could just start earlier if the time is a problem.

Cassea
08-03-2002, 11:27 AM
I'm not going to question your raid experiences but only speak about mine.

When the RL in ToV (for example) tells casters NOT to cast until the mob is at 50% you DO NOT CAST.

If you do you will find yourself in the doghouse and do it a few times off the raid.

I have a hard enough time trying to get in on these raids and I'm sure as hell not going to question the RL or do my own thing. These high level raids succeed or fail based on eveyrone working as a team. You don't like the RL's style then you can choose not to go.

Last time I checked I did not have too many RL's banging down the door looking for Druids to attend high level raids.

I never knew that the only reason RL's told casters to nuke at 50% was because Wizards only had enough mana to nuke half the battle. I'll have to ask about this :)

Znail vh
08-03-2002, 11:58 AM
Well, the main reason for a RL to want casters to not nuke to early would be to avoid a caster getting aggro. But can you please explain to me how you can get aggro if your spells are too slow? If you have to hold back on the speed wich you cast spells to avoid aggro, then its not the casting time on the spells that limits you.

L1ndara
08-03-2002, 12:14 PM
We have the second best cold DD in the game, behind the uber good Ice Spear... in fact while moonfire isn't as mana efficient it's actually better DPS chained than ice spear although wizards can mix in other spells to up their DPS.

We have the 3rd or 4rth best fire DD in the game behind Garrison's, Sunstrike and Seeking Flame.

Once people start getting their ancients...

We'll have the third best cold nuke behind Destruction and Ice Spear, but again the best chained DPS cold nuke.

We'll have THE BEST FIRE DD with Starfire of Ro and the second best DD in the game, but while it's more mana efficient than Garrison's it's much less DPS.

It's obvious druids are the 2nd best nukers in the game on raids, and when cold is landing we're not far behind wizards at all. It's also obvious that a 40's cleric is a better choice as a raid healer than a fully kitted 60 druid is, druids are still nowhere close to clerics or shamans for healing.

Wizards get a lot of advantages, spell casting subtlety (8 months after release it finally works), concussion, flappy etc. but when the mob finally topples if it wasn't a complete gimp that died in under 3 minutes the druids are going to right up there behind wizards for most damage dealt.

Cassea
08-03-2002, 01:51 PM
Most Druids think our Nukes are fine. What they would like are nukes that can hit the Uber mobs like wizards.

These mobs were not in the games years ago and when a druid does hit on a high level mob it often hits for half or less of the full damage.

The other reason many Druids are asking for better nukes is because they have totally given up asking for healing to be fixed. For sure many Druids prefer the nuke role and I like it alot myself but we are a directionless class at high level neither being able to fill in like we once did or needed for high level raid encounters that did not exist years ago excect for but a few Dragons.

The game changed and passed Druid by and Druids are hanging on by a thread at high level trying to hold on while other Druids have just let go and created new classes.

tetrian corbec
08-03-2002, 04:39 PM
What they would like are nukes that can hit the Uber mobs like wizards.

I dont get that part - what mobs exactly are you having problems with hitting? cause i havent encountered any problems with nuking neither kunark, velious or any highend luclin bosses - all gets hit for full with either fire or cold nukes.

L1ndara
08-03-2002, 06:48 PM
"I dont get that part - what mobs exactly are you having problems with hitting? cause i havent encountered any problems with nuking neither kunark, velious or any highend luclin bosses - all gets hit for full with either fire or cold nukes."

They changed boss mobs a while back to have more HPs and less resist which was the first major step to opening up classes other than wizards to be damage dealers and also upped wizard damage since they don't need the innefficient lures.

There is at least 1 NToV dragons that is basically immune (and by that I mean you're averaging less than 50% damage per nuke) to fire and cold, I think it's closer to 3 or 4. Sontalak while not immune often isn't debuffed so is effectivly immune. I think Tunare is immune to fire, cold and magic. Several non raid mobs are immune to anything but lures, mostly kunark or quest stuff, like Black Reavers, city gaurds. There aren't a lot of things, but it really sucks when you meet them. And obviously we're relying on bards and shamans and maybe wizards to debuff these mobs for us or even most easy to nuke mobs wouldn't even be touched by our nukes.

Edit: Oh, PoH and PoF most mini bosses are immune to non lures, PoH2 mobs are vvvvvvery resistant.

Smartypus
08-04-2002, 05:27 AM
For a chart outlying resistances of the uber mobs, go here:

www.graffe.com/library/mo...stance.htm (http://www.graffe.com/library/mob_resistance.htm)

Cassea
08-04-2002, 06:31 AM
Thank you. That is a very nice chart.

Tuved Stormrunner
08-05-2002, 07:55 AM
"We nuke far better than we heal."

/amen