View Full Forums : Results: Healing as a % of Warrior HPs (40-60)


Scirocco
02-22-2002, 07:42 AM
Several assumptions being made here.

First, I assume the following HP ranges for warriors at about these levels. There is a much wider variance for level 60s, of course. Since one complaint has been the lowering in healing abilities of the druid at the uberraid, I have included the "uber high level" warrior HP range separately. The "normal high level" might be more typical for a single full group, or a lighter raid (like HoT).

Level 40: 1900-2200
Level 50: 3300-3800
Level 60 (normal high level): 5800-6200
Level 60 (uber high level): 6800-7100


Second, I assume that the druid will use the heal with highest HP heal available. These would be (not including the 10% penalty):

Level 29: Greater Heal, 300 hp (top end of the healing range, which would be reached by 40)

Level 51: Superior Heal, 565 hp (bottom end of the range; I am assuming a level 51 druid since we are using the level 50 warrior hp)

Level 60: Nature's Touch, 978 hp.

With the 10% druid/shaman penalty, the actual amount being healed is:

Greater Heal: 270 hp
Superior Heal: 508 hp
Nature's Touch: 880 hp


Applying these heal amounts to the above warrior HP ranges, we get:

Level 40: 14.2% to 12.3% [1900-2200]
Level 50: 15.4% to 13.4% [3300-3800]
Level 60 (nhl): 15.2% to 14.2% [5800-6200]
Level 60 (uhl): 12.9% to 12.4% [6800-7100]


As you can see, based on the above assumptions, the percent of a warrior's HPs healed by a druid does not change signficantly from 40 to 60, except for the "uber" high level warrior (the high end raid tank).

If you remove the 10% penalty, you get the following percentages:

Level 40: 15.8% to 13.6%
Level 50: 17.1% to 14.9%
Level 60 (nhl): 16.8% to 15.8%
Level 60 (uhl): 14.4% to 13.8%

Removing the 10% penalty lifts the percentage of HPs healed to 13.8%-14.4% for the high end raid situation. This is roughly comparable to what we can do now at 40 and 50. Removing the penalty also lifts the ranges for the other cases, but not to such a high percentage as to be unbalancing (in my opinion, anyway).

Based on this, I would recommend lifting the 10% penalty, at least for druids level 40 and above. As has been pointed out in other threads, the need for the penalty at lower levels no longer exists. It is hard to argue for a new healing spell based on these numbers alone.

These leaves two other potential sources for the druid healing "problem." First, the increase in the rate of melee damage done by the mobs in a combat (this takes into account the damage per hit, the number of hits, and the length of the combat). Second, the increase in AoE damage. Time to turn our attention to them.

rtfm
02-22-2002, 08:05 AM
Chloroblast?

Sorrun
02-22-2002, 08:09 AM
Good work Scirocco.. same as it ever was...

I must admit I am a bit surprised, as I assume many will be, that the percentages are so close between 40, 50 and 60. I suspected they were not as far apart as many wanted to think but I didnt think they would be virtually equal.

More proof that this was most likely be design and it will take a different approach to convince a healing change... these didnt get to be so close by accident.


"These leaves two other potential sources for the druid healing "problem." First, the increase in the rate of melee damage done by the mobs in a combat (this takes into account the damage per hit, the number of hits, and the length of the combat). Second, the increase in AoE damage. Time to turn our attention to them."

I agree... but unfortunately, I am not convinced Verant will label these "problems"... that is going to be the biggest hurdle. If you modifiy these areas to cater to druids, you would most likley over power cleric heals since I am sure these dmg figures were put in place to offset the potential cleric healing power.

Does anyone think this % of HP arguement will be the same for caster HP? I suspect it will but it might be worth making sure...

I just dont see Verant making a healing change to the high end game to cater to druids, who it appears have been left out of the high end healing game by design.

Back to buffs?

Scirocco
02-22-2002, 08:11 AM
Chloroblast doesn't heal as much as Superior Healing. The main advantage is speed: we are making the conscious decision to trade faster healing for lower HPs healed. Other healing classes have the same options as well.

What I was looking at was healing potential. How much of a warrior's HPs could we heal with a single, non-HoT spell?

SilleyEskimo
02-22-2002, 08:19 AM
This confirms my assumption. However, the next several tests will probably show a dramatic increase in the % of dmg done to a tank's total HPs from lvls 40 to 60. I think that will provide a case for improved healing more than anything.

Also, I always thought by simply removing the server side penelty, our healing would certianly be boosted enough, ather than drastically altering our existing spells.

Good job, and keep up the great work! I appreciate you taking the time to do all the number crunching.

Fairweather Pure

rtfm
02-22-2002, 08:22 AM
Thought so.

Reason for the question mark.

Xendrix
02-22-2002, 08:40 AM
Isn't Nature's Touch a level 60 spell? You have it listed as 59.

Paldor
02-22-2002, 08:48 AM
I would also include the level 59...

Assume ~5% less then HP at 60?

Level 59 (normal high level): 5500-5900
Level 59 (uber high level): 6400-6800

Superior Heal (508 hp) NHL: 9.23% - 8.61%
Superior Heal (508 hp) UHL: 7.94% - 7.47%


The HP of the warrior will be near what they are at 60, but our heal will still be the inferior 51 version.

=-=-=-=

Be good to show them that level 60 is too late for an improved heal, and I for one hate that druids get so many "necessary" spells at 60... They really should be spread some of the level 60 spells (Nature's Touch, Nature's Recovery, Mask of Hunter) between 57-59.

A Shaman with 75% slow, can use Choloroblast with no problems 55-60.

A Druid does not have this option.

Kalinn
02-22-2002, 09:02 AM
it would be very interesting to look back at when CB and NT were introduced, and try to extrapolate what the average hp of tanks were at that time. then compare that data with todays average hp, and see how far apart the %s-healed are.

i cant figure out exactly when the healing upgrades were done tho.

we *have* to look at the balance issue as well between the priest classes. verants main rejection of ideas to upgrade classes is on the basis of class balance. if we can provide info to eliminate their arguments that are sure to come, then we are more likely to have a chance at seeing improves. shm and clr healing should be evaluated in a similar method, even if just used for control rather than a comparison.

Tudamorf
02-22-2002, 09:18 AM
Scirocco says: As you can see, based on the above assumptions, the percent of a warrior's HPs healed by a druid does not change signficantly from 40 to 60, except for the "uber" high level warrior

So? Why is the "percentage of total HP healed" such an important figure? It really doesn't tell you anything, and doesn't get at the core of the problem. In fact, this figure will probably confuse the issue more than anything, since it's about the same for the cleric spells.

The real issues are (a) the maximum amount of health you can heal over time, (b) how much total health you can heal before you run out of mana (mainly for raid-type situations), and (c) how fast you can continuously heal while not experiencing a net mana loss over time (mainly for sustained group situations).

Speed of healing over time: This is the amount healed by the spell, divided by the casting time + refresh time, represented in HP/sec. Until Nature's Touch, druid spells are patterned after the cleric spells, but with about a 10% penalty.

Example:

Chloroblast (level 55): heals 385 health in 3.0 seconds for 175 mana - 70 HP/sec
Remedy (level 51): heals 438 (?) health in 3.0 seconds for 175 mana - 79 HP/sec

Clerics are thus 12% more effective for the same spell category.

But Nature's Touch has a casting time of 5.5 versus 4.5 for divine light, giving it an even greater healing speed penalty:

Nature's Touch (level 60): heals 880 health in 5.5 seconds for 400 mana - 110 HP/sec
Divine Light (level 53): heals 910 (?) health in 4.5 seconds for 350 mana - 130 HP/sec

Clerics are now 18% more effective for the same spell category.

Why the disparity? The proper solution is not to increase the amount healed, but reduce casting time to 4.5.

Maximum total healing power without meditation: For longer encounters, this becomes an issue. With the 10% penalty and assuming identical mana pools, the druid can heal 10% less than the cleric in total for every spell EXCEPT for Nature's Touch. Nature's Touch consumes 400 mana, versus 350 for divine light, meaning that druids now have a (910X/350)/(880X/400) = 18% penalty again.

Solution: reduce the mana cost of Nature's Touch to 350.

Maximum healing power without net mana loss: This is the important figure for experience-type groups. Here, druids are fine with respect to clerics, because you can use Chloroblast which doesn't have the added penalties. However, compare the healing power of a level 60 druid to a level 60 shaman:

Level 60 druid:
Chloroblast - 2.2 health/mana point, 70 HP/sec
Nature's Touch - 2.2 health/mana point, 110 HP/sec
Nature's Recovery - 3.6 health/mana point, 5 HP/sec
(Nature's Recovery figure taken from data posted here, correct me if I'm wrong)

Level 60 shaman
Chloroblast - 2.2 health/mana point, 70 HP/sec
Torpor - 6 to 7.5 health/mana point, 50 HP/sec

With Torpor, shamans not only heal twice as efficiently as druids (with Nature's Recovery), but can heal TEN TIMES the amount of damage over time. Torpor heals almost as much damage over time as chain casting Chloroblast. The slow/snare effect of Torpor is almost a non-issue, and certainly is less of a problem than the recast time of Nature's Recovery.

Obviously, Nature's Recovery needs some beefing up to make it more of an high efficiency non-critical heal spell, along the lines of Torpor. Put differently, Torpor has about half the maximum efficiency and ~8% of the healing speed of Complete Healing, so why should Nature's Recovery have only 20% of the efficiency and ~1% of the healing speed?

Scirocco
02-22-2002, 09:26 AM
First, this part is by no means the complete argument concerning druid healing. It simply addresses one possible cause of the perceived druid healing problem: whether the spells we have are falling behind the amount of HPs the tanks have. We are breaking down the problem into pieces, and testing each piece.

Tudamorf is jumping ahead a bit and comparing healing efficiency and rates. That's not what was being looked at here, of course. What we had were druids making complaints that their heals would barely budge the HP bar of the tanks, and that their ability to heal was not keeping up with the HPs of the tanks. The above numbers address these specific concerns: level 60 druids "budge" the HP bars of the tanks about as well as they ever have the last 20 levels, and the raw healing amounts are keeping up with tank HP-inflation. What we have done is identified a small drop in %for the high level raid situation, which can be addressed mostly through the elimination of the 10% penalty.

Second, it is true that a druid at 59 doesn't have NT. This same effect is true for a druid at 49. Practically speaking, the %HP healed peaks the level we get a spell (or the level right after), and declines each level until we get the next healing spell.

However, there is a "self-help" fix for the weak healing powers of the druid in each of these "troughs": advance in level. This is true from every level from 1 through 59. There is no such fix for a level 60 druid, however, (although the AA skills may now provide such a fix), and since this game is several years old, it is the inadequacies of the end-game druid (i.e., level 60 druid) that predominate the discussion.

Quelm
02-22-2002, 09:28 AM
Nature's Touch is a 60th level spell.

Good post otherwise. It is interesting to note that we can still heal about the same amount with a single heal as we could at 40. What this example doesn't show is the increased healing power of other healers. Spells like Complete Heal, Torpor, Healing Wave of Prexus and the AA skill SCRM make clerics and shamans significantly better healers than they were at levels 40 and 50.

Given a Complete Heal that lands at 20 % life, here are some hitpoint:mana ratios for clerics healing warriors -

Hps/mana ratio for Complete Heal
40: 3.8-4.4 hps/mana
50: 6.6-7.6 hps/mana
60: 11.6-12.4 hps/mana
60(uhl): 13.6-14.2 hps/mana

Druid heals: hps/mana
Gheal: 1.8 hps/mana
Sheal: 2.1 hps/mana
Cblast: 2.2 hps/mana

Druid effectiveness relative to a Complete Healing Cleric
(druid hps/mana)/(cleric hps/mana)
40: 47%-41%
51: 32%-27%
60: 19%-18%
60(uhl): 16%-15%

Torpor has a 6:1 hitpoint:mana ratio, and takes effect in less than 30 seconds. Furthermore, it can be recast almost instantly on a second target. Taking this into account, Shamans are basically even with Druids on healing, with ratios around 2.0 to 2.2, until 60 when they leave us far behind. Torpor, combined with SCRM yields a 9:1 hps/mana ratio!

Druid healing effectiveness relative to a Shaman
(Druid hps/mana for direct heals) / (Shaman hps/mana for GHeal, SHeal, Torpor, SCRM Torpor)
40: 100%
50: 100%
60: 37%
60: 24%

Healing Wave of Prexus provides a 6.1 hps/mana ratio for paladins. If comparing hps/mana ratios provides a valid measure of healing effectiveness, a druid is 36% of a paladin when it comes to healing a group.

Granted, there's more to healing than hps/mana ratios. Cast time, spell duration, negative side effects and uneven damage all factor in to the healing equation. However, I believe that hps/mana ratios are a very important metric for comparing healing power. By level 60, our best instant-recast heal still has a 2.2 hps/mana ratio. As illustrated above, this leaves us far behind the other classes. So what? ...

You're a widget factory manager. Young Weepuls produce 4 widgets a day. Young Zarpuls produce 8 widgets a day. Weepuls will work for half the pay of a Zarpul. Experienced Weepuls produce 6 widgets a day. Experienced Zarpuls produce 36 widgets a day. Weepuls will still work for half the pay of a Zarpul. Guess who's looking for work?? =)

-Quelm, Hierophant
Drunken Tsunami, Terris-Thule

SilleyEskimo
02-22-2002, 09:29 AM
Once again Tudamorf, you present excellent data and reasoning, wrapped in your trademark personality of being as pompous as possible in written form.

Thanks for contributing none-the-less.

Fairweather Pure

Scirocco
02-22-2002, 09:44 AM
Quelm, if you've read the other threads discussing the healing issue, you know why I'm staying away from class comparisons at this stage. Any argument that starts out by comparing classes, no matter how objectively, is going to be at a disadvantage.

Fayne Dethe
02-22-2002, 10:11 AM
I've always felt the casting times of our spells needed to be looked at. Nature's Touch casts too slow to be truly effective, needs 1 second shaved off.

Also, druids dont use Superior Heal any at high levels so it really isnt that valid of comparison. Chloroblast is used for its fast casting time AND long range. Similar, NT is used for its long range and decent amount of healing, but it does cast rather slowly. SH has a rather short range and for the casting time, might as well be using CB or NT.

About making the removal of 10% penalty only for high levels - the easiest way to do that is just to make it an alternative XP skill, ie, Healing Adept Mastery which is only given to druids and shamans (and being a class skill is for level 59 and up). Druids arent complaining about healing at level 50 and under ;p. It is really the lack of the ability to keep people alive in the high end game (we do just fine in a normal xp group). Percentages dont even tell the whole story, considering how much faster the mob kills people at level 60 with hard melee, unresistable AOEs, etc than the really easy mobs you face sub-50. Really the part of the game druids need some work at are on high end Velious/Luclin raids, where our main role tends to be backup healing but we dont have the healing power to keep up anymore.

Sorrun
02-22-2002, 10:13 AM
While your numbers are nice Tudamorf and do prove a point to some extent, I dont think they will be effective in convincing Verant to make any healing changes to druids. One reason I can see for starting with our healing % from 40,50 to 60 was to establish our own base line, seperate from shaman and clerics.

Scirocco's (and others) research so far has disproven the popular belief that druids have somehow been shafted as they level when it comes to our own ability to heal tanks. Quite contrary, we are almost identical in healing power as we were at 40 with regard to % of HP we could heal. The difference is that mobs do more damage per second at 60 then they did at 40, proportionally speaking.

These findings, IMO, are a powerful blow to any discussions on our healing and one that will be hard to overcome without going down to the level of petty comparisons and class bickering over who the more efficent healer is. I am firm in believing that Verant will not listen to these forms of arguements since we were never designed to be clerics and have a wide range of spells that clerics never see and several spells that shaman dont enjoy. The balance of clerics, shaman and druids exist in the big picture not in each spell line one by one. That is a fact that many druids wish to overlook for sake of an easier arguement.

Tudamorf
02-22-2002, 10:17 AM
Scirocco says: It simply addresses one possible cause of the perceived druid healing problem: whether the spells we have are falling behind the amount of HPs the tanks have.
...
What we had were druids making complaints that their heals would barely budge the HP bar of the tanks, and that their ability to heal was not keeping up with the HPs of the tanks.

My point (apparently not clearly expressed) was that this analysis is irrelevant and clouds the real issue. What difference does it make if the healing spell "budges" the HP bar? If a target takes 500 damage, he or she needs 500 points of healing, regardless of the total amout of HP. Similarly, slow regeneration-over-time effects (regrowth, fungi tunic, fungi staff, etc.) may not "budge" the HP bar, but they can have a huge overall effect in some situations.

The only relevance of total HP is when you want to compare your healing spells to Complete Healing. The more HP the target needs to heal (up to 10,000), the more efficient Complete Healing becomes, and the less efficient your heals are by comparison.

If all you want to do is "budge" the health bar, create a new druid spell called Scirocco's Fallacious Recovery: heals 1,760 health for 800 mana with an 13.5 second cast time. There you go, you have successfully "budged" the HP bar, yet all of the real healing issues remain.

I also disagree with your conclusion that the 10% penalty should be removed as a consequence of the spell not "budging" the HP bar, since it seems to me like a blind, imprecise approach. The penalty is still important for the low levels, where the cleric is not nearly as important and can be easily replaced by a druid or shaman in almost every situation. Also, as I explain in my post, an adjustment of 10% in the healing amount may not be appropriate to keep the spells in line with the cleric spells. In the example of Nature's Touch, a 6% adjustment would be appropriate, whereas with Nature's Recovery, a much larger adjustment would be appropriate.

BaubenPeachins
02-22-2002, 10:27 AM
what's the big deal about our heals being relatively sucky to clerics and, to a lesser extent, shamans? us druids have some versatile abilities, let's be happy with that and not worry about wanting to be the best healers in the game

if i wanted to be the best healer in the game i'd play a cleric, if i wanted to the best melee buffer in the game and a decent healer i'd be a shaman, if i wanted to be a great solo class who can heal & travel too then i'd play a druid.

bauben peachins
54 dru e'ci

Quelm
02-22-2002, 10:38 AM
Druid healing power has increased slightly over the course of the game. Cleric healing power has increased dramatically. Complete heal is the same spell, it is just healing 3x as many hitpoints. Druids and shamans are equal healers (not counting slow) until Torpor.

I don't want this thread to degenerate into class-envy posts. I do want to point out the effects of changes to other classes on druids. The issue, IMO, is not whether druids can heal like we used to, but whether other classes are healing like they used to. Again, in my opinion, they're not. They're healing a LOT better.

The result is tougher raids. The result is more damage. If you'd like to bring in damage numbers from raids as well, and compare our healing abilities to what is expected of a healer, go for it. That will avoid class comparison, and hopefully provide evidence that druids are not filling the same role they used to. However, I believe a more direct approach is class comparison.

-Quelm

rtfm
02-22-2002, 10:42 AM
I think that on the surface the numbers show that our perceptions of falling behind was in error, at least mine.

But they also show where the discontent for uber level 60 druids come from.

Also I do agree that this first fact gathering step,,,should be devoid of regen abilities. The facts provided by Tudamorf and others should really be contained in a different thread.

There are a lot of variables as I see it,,,dividing up the numbers for fast heals, regens, & class comparisons first seems like a good idea at this point. Mixing them all together here,,,right now,,,seems like a jumble to me,,,and not very cogent.

Each by itself where we can then make clearer conclusions would make more sense.

I do think that this part of the experiment is done, and does show that a 55 druid is still healing pretty much the same as a level 40. A conclusion that I for one did not expect.

Sorrun
02-22-2002, 10:51 AM
However, I believe a more direct approach is class comparison.

Of course it is... unfortuately, it is also the easiest to dispell by Verant. Class comparisons can be a powerful arguement (see monk, rogues and even rangers) but they are usually not ones that gets much accomplished for a class that is basically the most powerful and most versitile class in EQ. It isnt until 55-60 that the druid class finally falls behind the other priest classes in overall usefullness and that really only applies to one facet of the game (raids). That is a perspective that is important to keep in mind if any kind of class comparison arguements gets presented.

Scirocco
02-22-2002, 10:51 AM
The result is tougher raids. The result is more damage. If you'd like to bring in damage numbers from raids as well, and compare our healing abilities to what is expected of a healer, go for it. That will avoid class comparison, and hopefully provide evidence that druids are not filling the same role they used to. However, I believe a more direct approach is class comparison.

True, it may be more direct, but any argument that starts off with that will be at a disadvantage. If you simply want to make the argument without optimizing the chance of selling changes to Verant, then the class comparison approach works as well as any other.


what's the big deal about our heals being relatively sucky to clerics and, to a lesser extent, shamans? us druids have some versatile abilities, let's be happy with that and not worry about wanting to be the best healers in the game


Druids don't want to be the best healers in the game. We simply want to stay in a viable secondary healer slot, one which we started with and held for most of our lives as druids. We have always been comparable healers with shaman...until recently at the highest levels. We may even have dropped behind paladins as healers.

We have always traded power in any one area/role for greater versatility. It is reasonable to expect protests when we suffer reductions in our power in a particular area/role like healing, without any commensurate increase in versatility. In fact, if you look at all of the changes in classes and the game over the past year, I'd say we've lost some of our relatively versatility.

Paldor
02-22-2002, 12:44 PM
Maybe I am out of line and not "getting" the main theme of this thread...


My point:

There are 3 'priest' classes (DRU/CLR/SHM), and 1 'hybrid' (PAL)

Once Clerics get complete heal they are set, becuase it will fill up a tank of HP no matter what level or HP they have. By the way it is set up, its efficiency just keeps getting better.

Shaman get 66%-75% SLOW at level 51. For all intents and purposes this is a HEAL spell in addition to Superior Heal. It reduces damage before being applied, instead of restoring healing after damage is applied. Same end result.

Since slow is also a percentage based spell, it also gains in efficiency as the shaman levels up (higher level mobs hit harder and sometimes quicker.. hence more damage reduced, hence more efficient)

Druids get Superior Heal 51-59... as the maximum health we can dish out in one spell (508). Set healing, getting worse and worse (as a percentage of HP) as levels get higher and higher..

Chloroblast on a 55+ tank is half a red bubble if that. Its mana / healing ratio better then SH does not make up for the fact that I can not be a solo healer for a group without a slower (when a tank is loosing more then half a red per 3 seconds).

-=-=

Maybe you guys are convinced about making this a purly "60th" level thread.

I think the problem exists before level 60, and the last thing I want Verant to do is to change the level 60 spell. That will not help the druids 51-59.

Its your thread, thanks for listening.

Miss Foxfyre
02-22-2002, 01:18 PM
Doesn't Superior Heal heal for 524?

Scirocco
02-22-2002, 01:26 PM
At the upper end, yes. I used the lower end of the listed range because I was assuming a druid first getting the spell at 51 would only be able to heal for the lower amount. Any level 51 druids out there that can tell me how much SH heals for you at 51?

In any event, it makes the % HP for SH go up even higher, and doesn't change the end result.

Jaqrabbit
02-22-2002, 02:58 PM
As a level 30 Druid, I don't really have much to add here, but I thought I'd point out one thing.

the comparisons used above are for Greater Heal at 40, Superior Heal at 51, and Nature's Touch at 60. Superior Heal and NT have just been acquired at those levels, whereas Greater Heal is 10 levels old at that point, and healing well below it's peak ability. At 30, 1 level after getting Greater Healing, I can heal about 25% of a tanks HP in one cast. If I don't med, I can do that about 6 or 7 times on a full mana bar.

It seems to me a bit questionable to compare a spell operating well below peak power with spells that have just been received and should therefore be at their peak.

Miss Foxfyre
02-22-2002, 03:07 PM
spells that have just been received and should therefore be at their peak

Not sure what you mean since they have a small range such that Superior Heal presumably doesn't do the full 524 at 51, but as neither my druid nor shaman are 51 I can't go back and test this.

Scirocco
02-22-2002, 03:15 PM
What he is referring to is the fact that our healing spells decline in relative % each level after we get them, as the HP of our main tanks continue to climb. Of course, all spells other than Complete Heal suffer this to some extent. Even NT at 60, as more and more items and AA skills come out that allow tanks to boost their HPs ever higher.

Kalinn
02-22-2002, 05:08 PM
something that hasnt been looked at yet is time lapse and its effect on healing.

when our heals were "balanced", it was a year ago. a year of new items, new higher hp spells, new other-priest heals has passed now.

to say that a lvl 60 druid can heal at the same % as we did at 40.... is incorrect. we heal similar to what druids do NOW at 40, not as WE did at 40. when i was 40, my heals could heal 2 bubs of life on similarly dressed (in comparison to the quality of MY gear) melee. now at 60, my heals do less than 1/2 a bub of life on similarly dressed melee.

because of this time lapse effect, comparing our healing now to our healing now, is not what we should be doing. we need to compare our healing now to our healing *then*. we also need to look at where other healing classes have been suplemented to increase their healing (or decrease the need of healing) during the same time frame, and compare where we fall in that spectrum.

going just on the time lapse since velious:
shaman -- buffs that give higher hp, aaxp skills to increase their HoT healing by up to 50% with no mana cost increase, aaxp skills to increase mana regen via mental clarity and cannibalization, new dot spells to speed mob death and decrease need for healing, aaxp skills to increase heals by up to 10% or crits.

cleric -- buffs that give higher hp, aaxp skills to increase their HoT healing by up to 50% with no mana cost increase, aaxp skills to increase mana regen via mental clarity, new spells to increase mana regen, new dot spells to speed mob death and decrease need for healing, new dd spells to speed mob death and decrease need for healing, new reverse damage shield to speed mob death and decrease need for healing, aaxp skills to increase heals by up to 10% or crits.

druid -- aaxp skills to increase mana regen via mental clarity, aaxp skills to increase heals by up to 10% or crits.


****this is dependant upon current state of SCRM. some say it works with HoT, some say it doesnt. after perusing cleric message boards, not even clerics know for sure it seems****
the effect that SCRM has on cleric and shaman healing potential. one of the major reasons the druid is completely outclassed for healing is our lack of a HoT spell. with SCRM, the gulf between druids and clr/shm could be widened even farther. with SCRM, a cleric could heal approximately 2250 hp for 300 mana, a shaman could heal approximately 1800 hp for 175 mana.


i would also like to see a comparison done, just like this original one with druid healing %s of hps, for shaman and cleric spells through their levels. also one taking into acct the best possible aaxp scenario, ie SCM3 and Healing Adept3. i dont have the patience to crunch that many numbers myself =P but i'd love to see it if someone else is inclined to do it =)

Scirocco
02-22-2002, 06:24 PM
because of this time lapse effect, comparing our healing now to our healing now, is not what we should be doing. we need to compare our healing now to our healing *then*.


Not really, since the state of the game two years ago doesn't matter. Back "then," the best heal spell we had was GH, and we slowly declined in ability to heal from 30 to 50. If you really want to compare then vs. now, we are much better off at the high end now thanks to SH, Chloroblast, and NT.

Can a level 40 druid now cure 2 bubbles on a typical level 40 tank (not twinked)? That was the question I proposed by asking what the HP of that typical level 40 tank would be. I simply used the numbers that I got. Do you have a different estimate of the HP for a level 40 tank that I should use?

rtfm
02-22-2002, 07:55 PM
I agree.

The twinkage of the today's 40 warriors can easily be offset by the twinkage of today's 40 druids.

Null effect. Null issue.

Kalinn
02-22-2002, 08:46 PM
I'm not talking about two years ago. as i SAID, i'm talking about a year ago when our heals were balanced (when CB and NT were added, and SH moved down). and in the past year since we were considered balanced heal-wise, there have been several additions to both cleric and shaman to increase their healing potential, while the druid has not had the same increase to healing potential. this has had the effect of letting shm/clr keep up with the increased hp we see now compared to a year ago, but the lack of druid additions means the druid has NOT kept up with the increased hp.

during the past year, the average hp of those we are healing has increased a lot, due to new items, new spells, new aaxp skills, and people in general leveling up and getting better gear as more of the velious world was conquered (when our heals were balanced, ntov was the hunting grounds of maybe only 2 or 3 guilds on ALL servers, now every server is better equipped with ntov quality items across multiple guilds). as such, our heals now heal less % than they did when we were "balanced".

a year ago, the average warrior in my guild had about 1500hp less than they do now. i used to heal a full bub of life with NT. now they are better equipped, with velious and luclin hp laden items, and new aaxp skills that increase their hp even more. yet my heals havent changed, and i'm now trying to heal them with outdated heals.

Scirocco
02-23-2002, 02:49 AM
a year ago, the average warrior in my guild had about 1500hp less than they do now.

OK, at what level? At all levels? What would the HP range have been for your tanks one year ago at levels 40, 50 and 60?

rtfm
02-23-2002, 09:34 AM
One question, or more like a point.

If we are looking to lift the 10 percent penalty,,,

It will probably have to be lifted for all the non cleric healers, right?

I think that anything less will smack of class envy,,and get booted, post haste.

Scirocco
02-23-2002, 01:18 PM
It will probably have to be lifted for all the non cleric healers, right?


That is exactly what I would propose. Overall, the removal of the 10% penalty is just a minor first step that is easily done with minimal coding changes (always an advantage when proposing a change). Based on reports from the Fan Faire, the coding team at Verant for EQ appears to be pretty minimal, with one coder having to handle many different things (the person coding all of the crafts, for example, was spending more time on PvP issues).

And we'd have the support of the shaman and paladins on this point...:)

Weoden
02-23-2002, 08:17 PM
post lv 39(complete heal) druids should definitly get the the healing penality lifted. before lv 39, clerics should maybe get a better buff added or something, dunno what.

Mooky
02-24-2002, 10:04 AM
How about we just eleminate the cleric? I mean, dang. Ain't you guys got enough skills already? I can do one thing in a group - heal. It's not just class envy, they have a class for healing - clerics. Play a cleric sometime, it's the most boring one dimensional class in the game. Once you get healing spells I guess you'll start begging for feign death. Druids forget this is a group game.

Kist, keeping warriors swinging for 53 levels

Scirocco
02-24-2002, 10:23 AM
How about we just eleminate the cleric? I mean, dang.

Don't be ridiculous. How does removal of the 10% healing penalty for druids and shaman lead to the elimination of the cleric? Not only does the cleric still have a 5% healing advantage and a greater variety of healing spells, it has Complete Heal, which dominates the healing arena. Even if clerics and shaman COULD heal 30% to 50% of a MT's hit points, they still wouldn't dent the need for a cleric.


Ain't you guys got enough skills already?

Druids have a wide variety of skills, but are tops at none of them. Historically, druids have shared the second rank of healing with shaman, and recently have found ourselves dropping to a distant third, or even fourth. Do you find it surprising that we, as fellow priests for whom healing IS a significant skill, would desire to maintain our second-rank status?

Mooky
02-24-2002, 11:03 AM
When you put it like that it makes more sense.

Weoden
02-24-2002, 04:07 PM
actually, if all you do as a cleric is heal(the above cleric), you dont understand all the spells a cleric has.... they can root, stun, undead nuke, give the some of the best buffs in the game... lets see what else, ivu, rez, mok, mor.. did i miss something? At lv 39, druids should get the healing penality removed. complete heal is soooo powerful. At lv 60, druids should get a more mana intensive complete heal.... 600 mana ish. Something that wont replace a complete heal in a group but would be a good substitue for comp heal and can help heal on raids.

In addition, most druids are probably evoc specialized.... clerics will most probably be alter speced. This gives them another huge advantage.

Finally, at lv 60, i have seen so many druids leave their class to purse a rogue or monk. While changing classes is not bad, i think that they left because of the pure frustration of not being able to heal and function on a large raid. most mobs drop fast and those that dont drop fast will own you if you aggro them... yes, healing OR nuking.

There has to be a better balance... and this board is trying to find that balance.

Ha! for got a spell, da and db.... snicker

Loegan Wolfheart
02-24-2002, 05:48 PM
Chloroblast on a 55+ tank is half a red bubble if that. Its mana / healing ratio better then SH does not make up for the fact that I can not be a solo healer for a group without a slower (when a tank is loosing more then half a red per 3 seconds).


Druids are not supposed to be solo healers. We are backup healers. This is where everyone is getting off track imo.

Our healing is meant primarly to reduce downtime between fights and secondary as a stop gap for clerics when the whole group is taking damage (AEs, multiple mobs) and to keep the cleric alive of course.

The problem I see is people want to be able to heal a group on their own and we are not set up for that role imo.

BTW - priest does not mean cleric. Being a priest class should not imply cleric level healing.

Jaqrabbit
02-24-2002, 07:50 PM
Just felt the need to respond to a couple points here:

>> actually, if all you do as a cleric is heal(the above cleric), you dont understand all the spells a cleric has<<

I suspect the reason that the cleric sticks primarily with heals is to conserve mana FOR heals, which is critical for a group. Tanks don't like it when their healer gets nuke happy, whether it's a druid, a shaman, OR a cleric.

>> At lv 60, druids should get a more mana intensive complete heal.... 600 mana ish<<

Whoa, hold on now... That's a bit much, I'd say. Asking for a complete heal, no matter how much mana it costs, is never gonna fly. That's a spell that will (and should) always be a Cleric exclusive. At most, I'd say a 33% heal for druids, since that would scale up in accordance with tank hitpoints. But even that (I think) is extremely unlikely.

>> Druids are not supposed to be solo healers. We are backup healers. Our healing is meant primarly to reduce downtime between fights and secondary as a stop gap for clerics when the whole group is taking damage (AEs, multiple mobs) and to keep the cleric alive of course.
<<

Ok, I totally disagree. Rangers and Paladins (before Pallies got group heals) were for healing in downtime. Bard songs were for healing in downtime. Druids heal during fights, certainly at level 30, and at least supposedly in the end game. You make it sound like the only class in the game that's supposed to be able to keep a group alive on their own is clerics, and that doesn't make even a little bit of sense. Druids should be a viable alternative to a cleric for healing in an exp group situation, at all levels (raiding is a different story). Clerics should certainly be better, but Druids should have a chance at keeping their group alive.

And as to the comment on being able to mitigate AE damage, I've seen a lot of people complaining about not being able to keep up with that particularly well. I don't know about that personally, since I haven't hit the endgame yet, but "where there's smoke, there's fire", so I'm guessing there may be some issues there too.

Personally, I'd like to maintain the healing ability I have now until the end of the game. I can keep a group alive by myself with slightly greater downtime than a cleric if I stick exclusively to heals, and a bit more downtime if I have to cover snare and DS duty as well. With Clarity, I have virtually no problems keeping a group healthy unless we get a nasty overpull. In one shot, I can heal ~25-30% of a tank's hitpoints. Clerics ARE preferred as healers, but I can hold my own. IMHO, that should describe the endgame as well.

But hell, I think 22 levels between Greater Heal and Superior Heal is too long, so what do I know. :-p

Loegan Wolfheart
02-24-2002, 09:55 PM
Personally, I'd like to maintain the healing ability I have now until the end of the game. I can keep a group alive by myself with slightly greater downtime than a cleric if I stick exclusively to heals, and a bit more downtime if I have to cover snare and DS duty as well. With Clarity, I have virtually no problems keeping a group healthy unless we get a nasty overpull. In one shot, I can heal ~25-30% of a tank's hitpoints. Clerics ARE preferred as healers, but I can hold my own. IMHO, that should describe the endgame as well.

If you only have slightly more downtime than a cleric AND can succor in an emergency, then why is a cleric preferred?

Your own statements make my argument for me. We should not be able to do the job of a cleric. They gave up the variety we have to specialize in healing, so no way we should be able to fill their shoes. I am sure a cleric wants to be more than just a rezz machine, which is all they would be if druids could heal as close to a clerics level as you say.

Kalinn
02-24-2002, 11:06 PM
if we arent suppose to do the job of a cleric.... then WHY are we force fed the role so much? we are expected to play cleric, but arent given the tools to do so. this is the main problem with our healing. if you find yourself healing in every single fight you are in, then YES, you are suppose to be a healer. especially when there are many fights where we do little besides heal.

my utter frustration this evening came from two things. one, casting a 400 mana heal, my absolute best heal in my book, and seeing my tanks hp, a freakin ranger no less, go up only 4/5th of a bubble. and two, spending 1200 mana to heal a melee 2 1/2 bubs, while at the same time seeing the cleric spend 400 to heal the other melee 4 1/2 bubs.

at this point, im really tired of hearing the "if you wanted to be a healer make a cleric" argument. being a primary healer was never my idea, but its the role the druid has been forced into repeatedly on raids. and im really sorry if clerics find their heal-med-heal-med life unexciting. thats not MY fault, and maybe they need to get up off those flat purple butts and advocate for changes for themselves. but dont try to hold back someone else who is working to better their lot just because you are unhappy with yours. what we are trying to do for druids will help EVERYONE, not just druids. raids would be really improved by more efficient healing done by non-clerics. and the better any class performs on raids, the better we all do on raids, and the more successful you will be as a guild or group.

Karenne666
02-25-2002, 02:29 AM
I have to agree with loegan... this thread is turning in a general whining party... if VI upgrade druid heal a bit, its great, but to spend 40 posts to say that clerics heal better and shamman have torpor and slow is pointless....

we could use a new heal, we are not gonna be 200 % more efficient or wanted in group because we have it...

Scirocco
02-25-2002, 02:46 AM
...being a primary healer was never my idea, but its the role the druid has been forced into repeatedly on raids.


By your guild. It is not a role that I am repeatedly forced into on raids. As a tertiary healer (not even secondary), I toss in some fast heals on the main tank at the start to ensure he or she stays alive for the first CH, do a Ro debuff (or two or three), then spend the rest of my time nuking or dotting. On a few raids, my fast heals are directed more towards a specific cleric or two to help fight off AoE effects, but I eventually turn to doing other things as well.

We may be the primary healer in a 6 person XP group. We should have the tools for that job. But I don't agree that we should be the primary healers on multiple-group raids.

Rhea Windsong
02-25-2002, 03:27 AM
You all are getting a bit silly. In my view at least, a druids job on raids (unless there are too many healers, and this does not happen often in my experience) is to backup the clerics. Clerics usually are focusing on the MT, leaving druids and shaman to help keep everyone alive due to AE damage, riposte damage, etc. Even doing this, druid high end heals lack-due to higher hitpoints and higher damage output of mobs.

I play a 55 cleric and a 60 druid. Believe me, druids and shaman do not come close to healing like I can with my cleric. At level 55, a druid or a shaman can heal ~500 hitpoints max. I can heal my 5000 hitpoint level 55 warrior hunting partner for 400 mana. My cleric has many abilities, that I think alot of people lose focus of. As a dark elf cleric, I can snare, stun, damage shield (MoR) and nuke if I have extra mana. I carry SoW potions and Invis potions. The only thing my cleric can't do that my druid can, is port. Now tell me who is going to be preferred in most exp groups as main healer. My 55 cleric or my 60 druid?

BrenwynAD
02-25-2002, 03:37 AM
A druid shouldn't be doing more than healing casters, and maybe a quick heal on the MA before Cheal lands, unless your guild's still raiding MM or something...

Druids role has always been as a support character. If any changes need to be made, I'd say a quick casting group heal for like 700pts say, to help with AE damage, and some other smaller hp amount, but quick casting heals, as would fit in with our support role.

Peoni
02-25-2002, 06:43 AM
I agree, that the 10% healing penalty for druids/shaman needs to go. A group heal would be a welcome addition, but i've no idea on verants view on this - historically we've always had group buffs, so i've no idea.....

As tanks (and every classes) max hp's increase at lvl 60, thus everyones heals become less powerful, with the sole and single exception of complete heal.

Pre level 60, this isn't a huge problem, since if twink tanks have more hp's at lvl 40, chances are twink priests have better equipment which gives them more mana to still do their job.

The most obvious way to solve this, would be to give druids a set % heal, not complete, maybe 33-50% of a targets hp.
(Personally i'd make the spell NO DROP, akin to primal avatar from ST).

By giving druids any other kind of heal (i.e. a fixed mana/hp heal spell), will only prolong the problem, until the next expansion when tanks once again have a greater number of hp - thus restarted the cycle again.....

Loegan Wolfheart
02-25-2002, 07:40 PM
I could care less on the 10% penalty. I think it was a nutty thing to begin with - give a cleric a bonus... ok, but then add a penalty to other healers? Seems like alot more work than just giving the clerics a bigger bonus or creating seperate spell lines altogether.


We want clerics to be the best healers.

Normal thinking - give them a 15% bonus.

VI thinking - give them a 5% bonus and subtract 10% from other healing classes.


Is it just me or does VI seem to make things more complicated than they have to be?

Scirocco
02-25-2002, 07:42 PM
Verant is just a glass-half-empty kind of company...:)

Grumbles Thunderfist
02-26-2002, 03:28 AM
Lot's of great points in this thread.

I wouldnt mind the 10% penalty being lifted from Druids/Shaman and given as an added bonus to Clerics. That part never did make sense to me, why penalize a Druid/Shaman/Paladin/Ranger at all? Just give the Cleric whatever bonus is deemed appropriate and leave the other classes baseline on the spell since 10% penalty doesnt affect a Shaman any differently then a Druid. And the Pally/Rangers are kind of already penalized in that their mana pool is so much smaller. So they might be able to crack off that Greater heal but at the cost of half their mana or something.


Might be kind of interesting to see Druids get a Celestial healing type spell at 60. Mana cost would likely be higher than compared to the Cleric version but at least it would be an available tool. Likewise I would like to see Clerics get a flat rate 2000 hp/550 mana heal, or a 50% heal that is fast casting like 3.o seconds but maybe 1000 mana.

In the end though, Druid DoT's, Nukes, buffs & Debuffs, gates and all the other utility spells will probably be the balancing for healing.