After a chat with Sobe, and Fuudce (admin of the <a href="http://www.planeteq.com/shaman/" target="top">Shamans of Justice</a> website) I am trying to achieve an alliance of the three main priest classes. The object of this alliance will be to present a unified front to Sony and tell them "this is what we want done with heal agro".

If we can come to them with exact figures we have a chance to getting what we need to make the game playable for all.

If you are willing to give your support to this, then pop over to the Clerics of Everquest message board and let us know

<a href="http://pub29.ezboard.com/fclericsofeverquestfrm1.showMessage?topicID=742.to pic" target="top">pub29.ezboard.com/fclericsofeverquestfrm1.showMessage?topicID=742.to pic</a>.

I am hoping that we can get some hard data and vaulable discussions going on here.

I personally would like it if there were some sort of general agreement and civil forum for discussing priest related issues.

I will have to carefully consider your offer, however.

I am not convinced at this time that a uniform standard like you are proposing is the way to go. Again, it will dilute the differences in the 3 main priest classes. So, that might end up meaning that your desire for true plate mitigation may not be able to come to fruition. For how then would it be equitable for true plate wearers to heal and mitigate much of the damage through the benfit of your armor and your current roster of avoidance and mitigation akills, when druids will not get such consideration? It seems that such a formula will also end up meaning that I cannot usemy utility as a druid when healing, something which I would not willingly give up. That is an integral part of what has made Teri fun for me to play all these years.

Again, I believe if the priest community were to go with a standard aggro per pt healed, then perhaps the druid %heal spells are all wrong for our class, and we "should" have gotten HoTs instead and smaller quicker patch heals, due to our mitigation and avoidance restrictions. I must add for the benefit of this board, that this is my very minority idea and does not represent the opinions of most druids here.

I am not sure that at this time, I could meaningfully contribute to a discussion that seems on the surface to forward more of the cleric agenda (at least to ME it does, not at all speaking for druids in general). I will continue to read and add to discussions and think about your offer, which I believe to be a sincere one.

I also wonder how these discussions, conducted in the absence of paladin participation, may ultimately affect that class.

I understand your concerns Terianya, the trick is finding a solution that solves the immediate problem (squished healers) and retains class diversity. i have been reading with interest the 'hard data' threads here and mulling over ideas in my head. I feel that with input from the druids and shamans a solution that could work for all should be able to be reached.

I'm not saying "hi, i'm here to make a decision for all of us". I'm offering to collate, listen and discuss ideas and possible solutions then form them into one coherent article for all to decide on.

Yum,
I see you are reading this thread. I am glad. I want to be a little more blunt about my possition than I was on your forum, so you can understand where I am comming from.

1. I see you are not from EQClerics but rather froma seperate Cleric class forum. I have never read your forum, but am goin to do so now to make sure I don't see there what I see at EQClerics every day - a bunch of people mostly interested in getting any class that share some Cleric abilities (Mostly Druids and Paladins) nerfed.

2. I completely blame the latest nerf on Druid healing on EQClerics. That board is consistantly the biggest offender across all EQ boards on calling for nerfs to other classes, rather than focussing exclusively on improvements to Clerics. This means 2 things. I have and will continue to have a deep resentment of the people on that board. I wish them nothing but the worst in EQ. The fact that I blame them, however, and not SoE, tells you something else about me. I believe that concerted actions by player communities can result in changes to the game. The Druid petition was an excellent example of using that in a positive manner. EQClerics is an excellent example of how it can be used negatively. So, I believe in what you are doing and I believe it can be effective and welcome the idea of participating in it.

3. The really blunt part and why I posted what I did in your thread. If Clerics think that they can get my support for a problem that effects them severly by first calling for nerfs on my class, then asking me to cooperate once they have caused us to face more often the same problem they have, I will have no part in it. That is why I am saying part of the process you are starting has to be a call to reverse the nerf to the TR/KR line completely independly of changes to healing agro generally. That is a show of good faith that the Clerics there are opposed to nerfing my class, period. A show that the Clerics I will be working with there do not believe that a nerf to Druids IS a buff to Clerics, as the general population of EQClerics clearly believes. If that is something that makes sense to you and you are will to make part of your plans, you will have my support 100%.

Was it this thread? (http://eqcleric.gameglow.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13268&highlight=percentage+heal+no+aggro)

I'm pretty sure the folks at Sony are capable of thinking for themselves on topics like this. Blaming aggro changes on Clerics makes about as much sense as blaming obesity on Hershey's.

Be carefull what you wish for. . .
Druids got exactly what they asked for, CH.
Heck, I think they got too much, seeing as how clerics got the all time uber following things:
1600hp heal that costs more mana then CH
A Group HoT that is pretty useless unless you MGB it.
Melee hammers (Melee? Yay, I can farm greens now. Well, not true. Droga beats me up pretty bad).
Mana regen yaulp that fades when you sit down.

Lol! I want ports, Damage sheilds, SoW, Strengh and Regen.
I wish I wish I wish . . .

SoE has the last say in these matters. If they let themselves be influenced by envious players then they are to blame.

I also don't appreciate the tone of some people over at Eqclerics. Not all of them think that way though(at least I hope not).

We are never going to be able to form an alliance when there's so much envy coming from each side(but mostly from clerics). They only seem to count healing as what they can do, well how about res'es? Or how about the best AC/HP buffs in game? Clerics have very select memories when it comes to what they can and can't do, especially when it's applied to druids.

I'm not sure we can ever truly come together on issues when so many clerics have such a warped perception of the druid class. I know it's been said before but you really should play a class to 60 or beyond to truly make informed comments about it. There isn't a sense of community to this game anymore, it's become an FPS and that's the underlying problem. Nobody cares about anyone else, or worse they seem to revel in other's misfortunes. Everyone begrudges the other guy and the less pleasant factors of human nature come into play. For that reason I have my doubts we can ever see eye to eye when it comes to a priest alliance.

"I'm pretty sure the folks at Sony are capable of thinking for themselves on topics like this"

Of course, they are also capable of making mistakes.

Yumanea:

No matter what else results from this, please know that I have been reading back through many of your posts and I admire your attitude a great deal. You try to see all sides of a question and remain cheerful no matter how badly the forum board warriors knock you. You see a problem and try to solve it. I commend you! I have a feeling that you would be a fun person to know :)

I just find all this Us vs. Them stuff really weird, but then I play every class. I find blasting people for the class they play just as stupid as blasting people for the color of their skin, or their country of origin, but people enjoy their hate, I guess. *shrug*

Anyhow, back to the main point, Yumanea, you are cool :)

Thank you Britomart :)

I know i am an 'evil cleric' here on the druid forum *grin*. but honestly guys, i love druids, i fully admit that i can't play one, i tried, oh how i tried, but i just can't do it. I have a great deal of respect for you that succeeded. All I'm asking is for as many of us as possible to put aside all the class envy and he said, she said for a while and see if we can fix this.

If we can't fix it, then hey, i think i have made some new friends :)

Let me try to address your concerns Aaeamdar.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
1. I see you are not from EQClerics but rather froma seperate Cleric class forum. I have never read your forum, but am goin to do so now to make sure I don't see there what I see at EQClerics every day - a bunch of people mostly interested in getting any class that share some Cleric abilities (Mostly Druids and Paladins) nerfed.
[/quote]
I have never been affiliated with EQClerics, in fact, when i went to post there i found that my sig still said i was level 32. and i think i had a post count of like 3. What you will most likely see at CoE is a bunch of happy friendly "i dinged" posts, questions about how to do stuff, and input from our resident melee types. Yes, there are umm, two threads about druid CHeal. One about the nerf, and one when you first got it.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
2. I completely blame the latest nerf on Druid healing on EQClerics. That board is consistantly the biggest offender across all EQ boards on calling for nerfs to other classes, rather than focussing exclusively on improvements to Clerics. This means 2 things. I have and will continue to have a deep resentment of the people on that board. I wish them nothing but the worst in EQ. The fact that I blame them, however, and not SoE, tells you something else about me. I believe that concerted actions by player communities can result in changes to the game. The Druid petition was an excellent example of using that in a positive manner. EQClerics is an excellent example of how it can be used negatively. So, I believe in what you are doing and I believe it can be effective and welcome the idea of participating in it.
[/quote]
Yes the screaming of the players does affect Sony and how they do things, we are their cash cow after all. I'm hoping to be able to cause a similar, albeit, beneficial change.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
3. The really blunt part and why I posted what I did in your thread.
[/quote]
I do appreciate your bluntness and honesty
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
If Clerics think that they can get my support for a problem that effects them severly by first calling for nerfs on my class, then asking me to cooperate once they have caused us to face more often the same problem they have, I will have no part in it.
[/quote]
yes, there is a problem with healing, no matter who casts the heal. This must be fixed.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
That is why I am saying part of the process you are starting has to be a call to reverse the nerf to the TR/KR line completely independly of changes to healing agro generally. That is a show of good faith that the Clerics there are opposed to nerfing my class, period. A show that the Clerics I will be working with there do not believe that a nerf to Druids IS a buff to Clerics, as the general population of EQClerics clearly believes
[/quote]
unfortunately i doubt very much that Sony will listen to a call to reverse the changes to the TR/KR line. Therefore, it may well be a waste of our collective energies to try to reverse something, and am asking for the focus to be switched to fixing it. hence why i started this, in the hope that we can get it fixed to a point where no one is dying because they healed one person, and no one class is screaming at another.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
. If that is something that makes sense to you and you are will to make part of your plans, you will have my support 100%.
[/quote]
your points do make sense to me, nothing is worse than being given something of incredible use only to have it yanked back with no notice and for no seemingly good reason (cleric hammer nerfed to uselessness because of tanks howling). I will not make promises to you, I wont’ insult your intelligence there, I don’t have an ‘inside track’ to Sony and I can’t make them do anything. I’m hoping however that as a collective entity we can make them realize that they have made a mistake and that it needs addressing. The healing issues affect all of us that have to play the part of main healer. It can only benefit us all to see them fixed to a level where we can again heal without instant agro.

I can't say I really trust clerics to keep our best interests at heart at this point. After seeing all the posts about how they want sow, ports, DS, invis, snares, and so on in exchange for only lowering aggro on our heals that tells me they're so blinded by greed that even if they did agree to unite they would still be trying to get us nerfed behind our backs.

"Be carefull what you wish for. . .
Druids got exactly what they asked for, CH."

Call me illiterate, but I don't recall CH being anywhere in the druid petition (the official consensus of the druids of this board). If I simply missed it, please point it out.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"Be carefull what you wish for. . .
Druids got exactly what they asked for, CH."

Call me illiterate, but I don't recall CH being anywhere in the druid petition (the official consensus of the druids of this board). If I simply missed it, please point it out.[/quote]

Exactly! Amazing how in a few short months, the real facts are forgotten. Or maybe its just that people didn't bother to know the facts and are making assumptions now.

No, I cannot sit idle until the trolls are shown the errors of their ways.

<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">Druids got exactly what they asked for, CH.</blockquote>

CH was never asked for. Had you paid more attention, even the slightest BIT of attention, you would have known that is not the case.

<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">Heck, I think they got too much, seeing as how clerics got the all time uber following things:
1600hp heal that costs more mana then CH</blockquote>

Why don't you check the mana cost on Nature's Infusion and Karana's Renewal before you open your mouth?


<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">A Group HoT that is pretty useless unless you MGB it.</blockquote>

Yeah, and we got the same whoopdeedoo with a reuse of 22 minutes. What's your point or do you even have one?

if you want full cooperation of priests, i'd suggest you enlist the help of eqclerics as well, as well as the MAIN shaman website, the crucible. to be honest it looks to me like half the clerics and 1/4 of the shamans standing allied. i'd also suggest trying to the eqdruids site, though i don't know if they are as high end and concerned with the same things we are. i don't visit there, so i can't tell you.

what i do suggest, is finding the bigger shaman site and talking to them as well, because as it stands now, you've got the small one.

ok. So unless I am misreading your reply, your focus is pretty much exclusively on what, until now, was a mostly just a Cleric problem. You are using the fact the EQClerics was successful in convincing SoE to nerf us to enlist us in your cause and you have no interest in trying to unnerf Druids. Got it. Thanks.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> No, I cannot sit idle until the trolls are shown the errors of their ways.


Quote:<em>Druids got exactly what they asked for, CH.</em>


CH was never asked for. Had you paid more attention, even the slightest BIT of attention, you would have known that is not the case.


Quote: <em>Heck, I think they got too much, seeing as how clerics got the all time uber following things:
1600hp heal that costs more mana then CH</em>


Why don't you check the mana cost on Nature's Infusion and Karana's Renewal before you open your mouth?



Quote: <em>A Group HoT that is pretty useless unless you MGB it.</em>


Yeah, and we got the same whoopdeedoo with a reuse of 22 minutes. What's your point or do you even have one? [/quote]



PLEASE!

Reading is an esstential part of any written arguement.

Reread the last 2 parts.

It was said "Heck, I think they (druids) got too much, seeing as <strong>how *clerics* got the all time uber following things</strong>." He was not talking about druids but clerics.

Next time read and think your arguements out before replying in such a knee-jerk, anti-cleric, hatred manner.

A good portion of the druid board *did* ask for a percentage heal. Infact, it was argued that unless it was a percentage heal it too soon would be outdated. So, claiming that CH wasnt asked for isnt correct. You got almost exactly what you asked for - only bugged because it had zero aggro. Incidently CH was changed from 10k to 7.5k too.

Further, when reasonable voices then said "you will get aggro, how will you handle that?" - the reply was "bugger off, us druids know how to handle aggro very well thank you - so we can handle a little iCH aggro too! - we dont need no stinking DA because we can handle aggro from debuffs etc without that already.".

Food for thought.

First off, Mikar, it seems, reading the boards, that the aggro on the iCH's is far in excess of what it should be.

Further, regardless of what was said previously, the fact remains that after months of testing..VI created the spells with very low aggro. The reason being they did not want druids to have a form of aggro mitigation, which would be necessary.

Now they have changed their tune, do to the constant cries for a nerf from the cleric community. Yet, still, they do not offer druids a means of aggro mitigation.

Nosh on that.

<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">"Heck, I think they (druids) got too much, seeing as how *clerics* got the all time uber following things." He was not talking about druids but clerics.</blockquote>

No s h i t. Before you think we have no reading comprehension, you go reread my reponses. Mana cost on PoP heals was generally big and fat all around, so we're not impressed by whiners who complain about their heals alone costing so much mana. Nature's Infusion didn't cost so much during beta, but that was changed in a jiffy when someone cried about it being "better" than the comparable cleric spell.

Nope, I didn't want it to get ugly, but the trolls and fair-weather posters don't get sarcasm or irony sometimes. From now on I'll have to put little smileys and winkies every time I say something facetiously.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> No s h i t. Before you think we have no reading comprehension, you go reread my reponses. Mana cost on PoP heals was generally big and fat all around, so we're not impressed by whiners who complain about their heals alone costing so much mana. Nature's Infusion didn't cost so much during beta, but that was changed in a jiffy when someone cried about it being "better" than the comparable cleric spell.

Nope, I didn't want it to get ugly, but the trolls and fair-weather posters don't get sarcasm or irony sometimes. From now on I'll have to put little smileys and winkies every time I say something facetiously. [/quote]

Before "you" think that "we"? No offense, but I am a druid, but I do have a rez bot. So I understand some druid and some cleric issues.

Message Boards are a place where sarcasm is easily confused unless A)you know the person in RL and how they handle things B)you intentally put into remarks "clues" to the fact that you are being sarcastic.

I read your post, and every other post in the last few days and I see nothing but anti-cleric this and that. I am sorry, do not hold clerics responsible for it. The last post (in your quoted thread) was on 11/30/02. The issue had pretty much died down. Sure they can complain all they want, but they are not the ones making the decisions... thats SoE.

I don't think clerics realize what they are getting themselfs into if they have an uncapped, proportioned CH aggro. But hey, let them shoot themselfs in the foot. And then let them fight their own fight.

<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">Sure they can complain all they want, but they are not the ones making the decisions... thats SoE.</blockquote>

The dev team makes decisions, but some of it is based on feedback, especially feedback certain people gave before PoP shipped. Nature's Infusion, as you'll remember from the Lucy data, was a faster-casting, lower-mana spell originally, but look at its bloat now. The overwhelming feedback from this board was positive; however, why was there a subsequent change to the spell? I don't really need to answer this question. Somewhere else someone said, "I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down."

This has gotten way off topic...

Well I didn't get to cast the spell in beta... so I can't really miss it. I also know that things in Lucy can/do change. But I dont know why it got changed.

Clerics do specialize in healing, like wizards specialize in nukes. And they should have the bigger, faster, more mana efficient spells.

I dont know why the cleric quick heal was simply not made better than the druid's, but the developers decided that the spell was overpowering.

All DIRECT heals should generate aggro proportionate to the amount healed (or possibly the potential amount healed) regradless of the class casting the heal.
Looking forward to the druid love I am about to get. But it is the fairest approach.
Does the enchanter slow generate less aggro than the shaman slow?
Does mage nukes generate less aggro than wizzie nukes?
Do necro dots generate less aggro than shaman dots?
Why should one class get less aggro than another? Boggles my mind that some people think thats how it should be.
EDIT: added direct to the first sentence, caused mis communication.

Aaeamdar, i'm not sure i understand entirely what you are saying here.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
ok. So unless I am misreading your reply, your focus is pretty much exclusively on what, until now, was a mostly just a Cleric problem.
[/quote]
yes heal agro USED TO BE "just a cleric problem" Sony gave you new heals, it became a priest problem. And from what i have read, it is more of a problem for druids, than clerics.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
You are using the fact the EQClerics was successful in convincing SoE to nerf us to enlist us in your cause and you have no interest in trying to unnerf Druids. Got it. Thanks.
[/quote]
I think you will find that if i had no interest in unnerfing druids i would not have stuck my neck out like this in the first place.

do you not feel that a reduction in the current healing agro would be an unnerf?

Heals generally do generate aggro in proportion to the amount healed, but a cap was placed on this aggro a while back to stop CH from generating very high aggro. This was back when druid and shaman heals were still all below the 1000-point mark, so the only spell that ran into the cap was CH. And the cap was low enough that even a modest CH in the 3000-point range hit the cap.

Now, druids have spells that exceed the cap. The latest change means that CH, TR and KR usually all hit the cap now (TR and KR did not hit the cap before, and were at an artificially low set aggro....so low as to be negligible in the majority of cases).

The real problem is timing. Due to the limited nature of TR and KR, druids do not have the luxury of holding back a few extra seconds like clerics. If a CH lands a few seconds later, or when the MT is around 25% or lower, it's not a big deal....the CH heals for 6000 instead of 3000-4000 and the MT gets healed to full (in most cases).

Not so with TR or KR. If these spells land too late, the tank doesn't get healed to full, and the tank may have even lower HP by the time the next one lands (since TR and KR take as long to cast as CH), leading to a steady slide to death for the MT if the druid is the only one healing.

That's why a druid has to cast TR or KR earlier. And earlier means the tanks (or others) have had less of chance to build up aggro. So, while a druid casting TR/KR and a cleric casting CH get the same quantitative amount of aggro, comparatively speaking, the druid gets hosed.

The solution? Have TR and KR have caps separate from the one that was designed for CH. Have these caps be proportionately lower, based on the max. amount of healing each can do.

Scirocco, IMO the answer isn't to have different aggro based on classes, but to have a cleric in your group. Then you can work together to heal effectively on hard EXP mobs.
All heals should aggro the same. If they don't it cannot be balanced.
Sometimes tanks have to die, it's a fact of group life. Everyone can't always be saved, no matter who is healing.

Yum,
Let me try to explain more clearly then.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>yes heal agro USED TO BE "just a cleric problem" Sony gave you new heals, it became a priest problem. And from what i have read, it is more of a problem for druids, than clerics.[/quote]

No. That is not the correct sequence of events. TR/KR generated low agro when Sony gave us those heals. NI generated agro like all other direct heals. So, for the most part, when SoE gave us the new heals, Druids did not incur any additional agro problems associated with healing. It was not until teh EQClerics driven nerf to TR/KR that druids now have similar (but greater) heal agro problems.

So, you are now taking advantage of the nerf to druid healing to enlist druids in a battle for changes to healing agro generally. As you have made clear above, you are not interested in getting the Druid healing nerf reversed in its own right. You are simply interested in taking advantage of the nerf - again a nerf broguht about by Clerics complaining about Druid spells - to gather our support to change healing agro that has effect Clerics.

Healing agro for Clerics (and Druids casting NI) has been a problem in PoP for a long time now. You never came here before to ask our assistance or support for reduced healing agro. Support for which, in my case at least, I would have gladly lent.

Your use of the Druid Healing nerf to gather Druid support does nt sit well with me at all. That is why I asked - are you willing to fight for a reversal of the recent nerf as a comletely seperate issue to changing the way healing agro works generally. Your answer was clear enough - "No."

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think you will find that if i had no interest in unnerfing druids i would not have stuck my neck out like this in the first place.[/quote]

You have not really stuck your neck out at all, as your answering in the negative to my question about fighting for a reversal to the druids healing nerf makes clear. You are here to gather support to solve your own issues. If it solves other's issues in the process, you do not seem to mind that. But you are not willing to support the un-nerfing of the Druid TR/KR line because that does nothing for you.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>do you not feel that a reduction in the current healing agro would be an unnerf?[/quote]

No. Cleraly not, in fact. TR/KR used to generate extremely low agro - comperable to a buff/HoT. Any change to healing agro, generally, is not going to put TR/KR back where it has been since the spells were first introduced. The net effect will be better than it is now, but far far worse from where we were a week ago. Like I have been saying, the specific nerf to TR/KR and the problems with healing agro generally, are 2 completely seperate issues. If you cannot see that, I am not sure what to say.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Scirocco, IMO the answer isn't to have different aggro based on classes, but to have a cleric in your group. Then you can work together to heal effectively on hard EXP mobs.[/quote]

Well, this is a helpful response. How dare you come here to discuss anything about equitable healing for priests and then come right out and say that you think only clerics should be able to serve as primary healers in eery situation.

As far as I am concerned, your words are no longer a part of any meaningful discussion.

I wish this thread could turn to its original topic. Else, I will give up reading it. People who just want to argue and inflame the situation can start their own thread somewhere else.

Aidon

I am a firm believer that the near zero aggro was simply a bug - not a concious decision. I read the cleric board religiously - and despite what I see posted here I have definitely not seen any crusade to fix/nerf (depending on view) your aggro.

I have seen reasonable posts researching and wondering why druid iCH had *alot* less aggro than cleric CH (mind, when healing for equal amounts in similar situations) - but calling that a crusade to nerf druids? Absolutely not.


Scirocco

I assume you are referring to exp groups. Well, I definitely dont agree with Kegwell that you should have to have a cleric in the group always - but I do agree as far as to saying that if a group wishes to exp on hard hitting mobs with a druid instead of a cleric as main healer - then that group should possible require a bit more in evasive measures than with a cleric (play smarter because brute force isnt an option if you like). That could be snare + slow before tanking in many cases - but I am sure you know alot better than I do about such measures.

Does that mean that there are spots a druid cannot take his group? Yes, probably. But thats balanced by the fact that druids work very well in small groups root dotting or aggro kiting with a pet class. None of which a cleric can do at all. Infact - unless its with a CoD chanter or a full group a cleric is of very little use. Thus clerics HAVE to group and HAVE to heal when grouping - so naturally we should endure a clear advantage over druids in such a situation - which I also think we do.

So, I think its pretty fair to use the exact same cap for all heals. Now, if the iCH spells are actually capped higher by mistake then that obviously needs to be fixed.

so far in testing the waters for this alliance on different boards, the reaction has been wildly different. EQClerics and the Shamans Crucible told me to take a hike (except not so politely) Clerics of EverQuest and people here at the Druids Grove have sat and listened and interjected with mostly well reasoned and thought out responses, rebuttals, and suggestions.

I do have a personal stance on heal agro, i have not brought it to the fore because I feel that if i am organising an alliance then it should be the community viewpoint that i adhere to, not my own. To this end i have tried to tread a middle ground and see if there is a solution that would work for ALL healing classes.

As usual when dealing with a large number of people trying to get one focused voice is somewhat like herding cats, at the least, very difficult. So i have two questions for the Druids here:

1/ would your job as healer be easier to do if your heals generated agro on a 33% basis?
(1 point agro for 3 points healed)

2/ given that Sony are never in the habit of reversing a nerf once it is in, would the above solution be acceptable to you?

I personally have not had a problem with heal agro, but I admit that my viewpoint is not the view of someone who has done tier 2 and up planes, hence why i have not said much about it but have listened to the voices of those that do know what they are talking about here.

Clerics are the primary healers in EQ.
Druids and shaman can also heal, have asked for better healing tools to add to their current utility. Grats on getting new usefullness.
PoP mobs hit harder and faster than all older world mobs. Of course not having a class in your group that is primarilly a healer will impact the group. That group is utilizing the utility non cleric priests offer. If you want the best healing, add a cleric to your group. If you don't mind not having the best healer, add what you want and have a nice day. This seems like what the warriors were experiencing in CT when taunt was broken. People were taking hybrids to tank because they could hold aggro better. When druid heals had extremely low aggro, people were taking druids over clerics due to not having to worry about aggro on the healer. Both cases are wrong.
Healing aggro cannot be class determined, it has to be determined by the amount healed, OR the potential amount healed, period.

<strong>Scirocco, IMO the answer isn't to have different aggro based on classes, but to have a cleric in your group.</strong>

Wrong answer. It is precisely the cleric monopoly on healing that TR and KR were designed to break.

With that having been said, I always prefer a cleric in my groups. I am a nuking druid, not a healing druid. Athough I can do backup heals if needed, and can keep a group going if the cleric goes LD.


<strong>All heals should aggro the same. If they don't it cannot be balanced.</strong>

I assume that you do not mean this literally (why should a 500 point heal aggro as much as a 3000 or 6000 point heal?), but more that heals should aggro in proportion to the amount healed (or the potential amount healed). And that is exactly what I propose above.

Keep in mind that all heals are not equal. TR and KR, in order to do their jobs, have to be cast earlier than CH. And because they are, while the druid may gain the same numerical aggro that a cleric casting later with CH does, the druid's aggro is going to place the druid substantially higher on the aggro list at that point in time than the CH will later.

Also keep in mind that TR and KR have to be cast more often than CH in many cases to do the same job because of their lower caps. If each cast generates the same amount of aggro, druids will pick up more aggro due to the greater number of casts. Same effective job => more aggro for the druid.

Which is why having the TR and KR aggro cap be proportionate to the CH aggro cap. If these spells heal for an amount lower than the cap break point, then the aggro is directly proportionate to the amount healed. If greater, then the proportions are fixed by the caps, which are based on the maximum healing power of each spell.

You just shot yourself in the foot and showed your true colors Kegwell by making that comment about 'every group should have a cleric'. Thanks for the advice troll, you're the kind of cleric I do NOT want to be allied with.

Doesn't surprise me about Eqclerics. Can't expect an alliance with the very people trying to wipe our class out.

So many keep suggesting that all heals should generate equal agro depending on the amount healed. This is never going to happen. This suggestion conveniently forgets that there is different agro for fast quick heals vs slow heals. This has always been the case in EQ. My experience has shown that Druids 5.5 second 980 heal frequently generates more agro than Clerics' CH even when it was a 10k heal. I'd guess that Druids' Infusion for 1750 healed generates more agro than even the currently nerfed Tunare's Renewal that heals for 2900, simply because of the casting times.

Healing agro is not a static one, and a simplistic solution such as all heals should agro for the amount healed will not be accepted by SoE since it ignores all other factors, including casting time.

You can't simply take one type of heal (e.g. % heals) and look at it in a vacuum without considering and balancing it against many factors. Such things as casting time, direct heals vs heal over time, are considered by SoE when determining healing agro. Thus, it is also consistent and fair for SoE to consider other factors when determining healing agro, such as agro mitigation, or lack of it, mana efficiency, typical usage of the heal, etc.

Until and unless those proclaiming that all heals should generate the same agro for the amount healed start considering the other factors as well, the suggestion is unfair and unrealistic.

"Further, when reasonable voices then said "you will get aggro, how will you handle that?" - the reply was "bugger off, us druids know how to handle aggro very well thank you - so we can handle a little iCH aggro too! - we dont need no stinking DA because we can handle aggro from debuffs etc without that already."."



This NEEDS to be said to you gloating, know-it-all Clerics that call for nerfs on Pally's, Monks, Shamans, Druids, etc. because your such petty people. Especially to all the ones saying "i told you so" over at EQClerics.

First of all, our iCH was fine when it was first implemented. Argue it was a bug all you want, fact is it was on TC long enough for SoE to know exactly what it was and the aggro it had. Sony and everyone knew Druids have no means to lower or DA aggro. Regardless, every one of you Cleric-babies that were telling us about the aggro at the time were WRONG. Yes, you know-it-alls were wrong since iCH aggro was perfectly fine, and we could handle the aggro just fine up until you Clerics ended up calling for a nerf of it just recently.

The most annoying thing is all of you whiney Clerics are coming out of the closet now saying "i told you so". Now read carefully....you didnt "tell us so" until AFTER you got us nerfed, and only then could you brag all over your board about how you "told us so" and how smart you are. You werent right back in the day, and your only right now because of your own doing in getting us nerfed.

So praise your psychic abilities all you want. Keep throwing in our face how you "told us so". The reality is you got us nerfed, and each time you "tell us so", your only rubbing salt in the would that YOU created.

Some of you really need to grow up, and quit crying for nerfs on every other class because of your petty jealousies.

*sarcasm* The answer to druid heal aggro is to staple a cleric to every druid.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>When druid heals had extremely low aggro, people were taking druids over clerics due to not having to worry about aggro on the healer. [/quote]

Come on, this is a ridiculous statement. You know better than that.

Broom, Moss, Aaeamdar, and the others who claimed that Clerics have been asking for repeated and malicious nerfs for other clerics I would like to ask you to do something. Prove it. Where are you seeing all of these cries for nerfs coming from Clerics. I would like to see hard examples of this because some of you are saying that crying for nerfs is the only thing we do over at EQCleric.

Granted, there is this single thread that everyone points at:
eqcleric.gameglow.com/for...adid=13268 (http://eqcleric.gameglow.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13268)
That thread was created and concluded by a Druid back in November. Now, beside that single post, show me examples where Clerics have, seriously, been calling for nerfs.

Thank you and have a splenderifous day.

I asked for input not flames.

to those of you that made posts expressing your concerns in a rational, thoughtful manner that did not involve finger pointing and 'i told you so's. I thank you and i'm sorry that this idea of mine did not work.

I thank Sobe and everyone that calls the Grove home for letting me post here and see if this idea would fly or not. I do regret that it seems it won't, and i hope i'm still welcome to visit here.

Actually, thats the only thread i needed to read to conclude that Clerics over there ARE guilty of getting us nerfed. I dont think complaints of TR aggro was seriously brought up anywhere else. I dont know how many threads or statements you think we need to prove some Clerics are guilty of calling for a Druid nerf, but the one you linked is all i have to read to reach that conclusion. Furthermore, the Druid that posted that is a Cleric as well, would hope more a Cleric than a Druid considering she got her own class nerfed. Maybe her Druid is a port-bot, like so many are.

Anyhow, read that thread. Read all the gloating of "i told you so". Look anywheree else to see if there are any threads that resemble calling for the nerf of TR aggro. And then you might be able to narrow down where exaclty the blame lies....

eqcleric.gameglow.com/for...adid=13268

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Clerics that call for nerfs on Pally's, Monks, Shamans, Druids, etc.[/quote]

100% serious here... I know all class boards get their share of trolls that try and stir the pot...

But WHERE does the sentiment expressed above and throughout this and several other threads come from?

I read EQC daily. I post frequently. I honestly have no idea where this idea comes from.

Just like Islington above... please, I'd love to see the proof.

In a way, I can even understand this complaint by druids, that by having a discussion on heal aggro a few months ago brought SOEs attention to it... but how in the world do some of you think we continually cry out for nerfing other class? Monks? Pallies? Shaman? heh

I just don't understand this part of the hate, but would like to...

Have to agree about the other classes. It was actually pallies who got us nerfed, not the other way around.

I wouldn't count on any support from the shaman community:

forums.interealms.com/sha...eadid=9980 (http://forums.interealms.com/shaman/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9980)

:(

Thanks for the attempt, Yumanea.

And of course you're welcome here Yumanea. =)

Personally, I'm done talking about this. I'm just playing the game. If I die, rez me. If you die, we'll get you rezzed.


(tho the comment yesterday from the cleric lead in our raid for the druids to use our "low aggro heals" was pretty funny =)

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>2/ given that Sony are never in the habit of reversing a nerf once it is in, would the above solution be acceptable to you?[/quote]

I know this is mostly a non-issue, as you have given up, but ...

You see, if you really felt that it was wrong of SoE to nerf TR/KR, but that they just were not likely to budge on the issue, your answer could have/should have been - "I don't think it will work, but Yes, I will be happy to make part of our efforts be the removal of teh TR/KR nerf."

You speak politely. You have not said that you are glad Druids were nerfed. You have not attempted to argue that the nerf was appropriate. If you had done these things, you would have been easily identified as a Cleric troll like all the Cleric trolls that post here from EQClerics. Clearly you are not that.

That said, I believe you are glad that TR/KR was nerfed. I believe you think that TR/KR should agro similarly to CH, but that all of those heals should agro less than they do now. If that was not true, you would not have steadfastly refused to make part of our efforts the reversal of the TR/KR nerf. Your logic of "but its a waste of time" is not reasonable either. If it was merely a waste of time, you should have agreed to it as part of the cost of getting the support of the Druid's Grove (I assure you - you would have had overwhelming support had you simply called for a reversal of our nerf, regardless of the likelihood of success). Instead, I suspect you fear that it would be successful and simply do not want the nerf changed back.

If I am wrong, feel free to post that here. You can give up on your alliance if you like, but he reality is, The Druid's Grove alone was able to use its influence to get substantial changes to our class put in the game. Just go into the archives and look at the petition and see how much of that was implemented exactly as requested. Whether EQClerics or the Shamen Cruicbal wants to support this or not, I don't see that as a reason to give up. Your site and ours could still file a joint petition or suggestion/demand letter - whatever you want to call it - to deal with healing issues. The only thing you need to do is decide that the nerfing of the TR/KR line was wrong and support it being changed back. That should not be such a hard task from someone who thinks it is unlikely to happen.

*edit - take it to tells or whatever else EZBoard uses.

*edit - take it to tells or whatever else EZBoard uses.

There is a lot of good thigns discused on theese boards but one thing disturbs me.

i see one heck of a lot of fingerpointing on theese AND other boards, it comes right down to class envy. im tired of having to read it.... blaming clerics for druid nerfs is ridiculos... AS IS clerics blaming druids for nerfs. lets face it nowadays VI dosent take much input from any one comunity anymore.

as a cleric im downright ashamed to see EQclerics show the hatered of this board and im dissapointed that people cant learn to keep to rational discussion on this board in regard to clerics as well..

cmon people... GROW UP.
racism just isnt right, and thats what this attitude is
(IE.. hating others cause they are diffrent)

*edit - take it to tells or whatever else EZBoard uses.

Shockingly, I got flamed! =)

Well, my "blinders" sure don't hide the fact you're one of the most unreceptive, unreasonable and insulting culprits involved in this debate. =)

No matter how reasonable, how polite or how placating any cleric has tried to be here, Aaeamdar, you've shown nothing but pure hostility. Greatly to the detriment of your class and your side of the argument, I might add.

I have a contrary opinion and am trying to add a different perspective on an issue that affects ALL priests... on boards that are decidedly hostile towards my class... that MUST make me a troll, hmm? =)

*edit - take it to tells or whatever else EZBoard uses.

*edit - take it to tells or whatever else EZBoard uses.

*edit - take it to tells or whatever else EZBoard uses.

Aaeamdar, would you agree that the nerfing of Donal's Breastplate was wrong, and join others in demanding the nerf be reversed? Should it be nerfed back to it's original form? Can we sign you up for un-nerfing Mark Of Karn? Which variation do you support?

Point is, Sony doesn't playtest it's product. They have proven to at least be able to keep it going for almost 4 years by doing their best at keeping people happy / addicted.

The cleric nerfs (and others to my class) WERE needed. The thing that the nerfs accomplished was to keep the integrity of the game together enough for 400,000 people to keep paying for it. Broken classes to the point of overpowering or trivializing encounters = Nintendo game. Get your hacks and win in an hour or 2.

I have no idea what, if any, nerfs druid need. I only feel a certain way about a class based on how that class's play affects my play.

Heals HAVE to aggro mobs.
When a goup has a multi pull, and one is a healer NPC, which would you generally kill first?
Healing without aggro or aggro so low it is insignificant was breaking the game. There is other things that break the game too, such as enchanters charming 500 to 900 DPS pets, but who would want that fixed?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I wouldn't count on any support from the shaman community:
[/quote]

Well a class that powerfull to only get its first slight taste of the nerf bat in PoP is based partly on the fact that they are a small community and generally fairly quiet. They are probally quite terrified about the state of Slow mitigation in the next expansion and would probally prefer SoE just forget they existed at all.

I gave up because all this seemed to generate was a mass resurgence of class hatred. that was not my aim and i am rather upset that people have been upset at comments that got aimed their way. I am not pointing fingers at anyone, but it was fast devolving into a flame war across four message boards.

Unless Sony go something outlandsih like give feign death to all classes then make it only work 0.00001% of the time, you are unlikely to hear me scream that a nerf was justified. NO stealth nerf is fair or justified, NONE OF THEM. My personal feeling is that Sony felt they made a mistake with the heal agro, or lack thereof on the druid spell. Ok, they felt they made a mistake, fine, why the heck didn't they SAY so to everyone then tune it gradually to find that fine balance that is needed with a class that debuffs and heals? the way they suddenly changed your heal agro is VERY unfair.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
I believe you think that TR/KR should agro similarly to CH, but that all of those heals should agro less than they do now.
[/quote]
It is in no way fair that druids recieve the same amount of agro from TR/KR as clerics do for CH. However, some small portion of agro is not out of line, please note the use of the word SMALL. Given your job, with snaring and debuffing taken into acount, 10 - 15% of CHeals agro would not be unbalancing, and i think (i could be wrong, i'm not a druid) be manageable.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
If I am wrong, feel free to post that here. You can give up on your alliance if you like, but he reality is, The Druid's Grove alone was able to use its influence to get substantial changes to our class put in the game. Just go into the archives and look at the petition and see how much of that was implemented exactly as requested. Whether EQClerics or the Shamen Cruicbal wants to support this or not, I don't see that as a reason to give up. Your site and ours could still file a joint petition or suggestion/demand letter - whatever you want to call it - to deal with healing issues. The only thing you need to do is decide that the nerfing of the TR/KR line was wrong and support it being changed back. That should not be such a hard task from someone who thinks it is unlikely to happen.
[/quote]

If i know i have the backing of TDG then i am more than willing to file a joint petition. CoE will back it as well.

I just want the flame wars to stop. I was hoping that this call may help heal some of the class hatred, my motivation in shelving it (against the advice of my husband) was that i was very upset at the flames that it generated.

I am relying on you guys, as druids to state what type of agro is workable. I figure we can start with "put it back to where is was" then bargin from there. If 15% is workable, but 20 is not, I need to know so that we can detail a petition. I am slightly on the back foot here, not knowing exactly how much agro a druid generates from personal experience, only from watching.

It is in no way fair that druids recieve the same amount of agro from TR/KR as clerics do for CH. However, some small portion of agro is not out of line, please note the use of the word SMALL. Given your job, with snaring and debuffing taken into acount, 10 - 15% of CHeals agro would not be unbalancing, and i think (i could be wrong, i'm not a druid) be manageable.

I can only assume you are kidding. Same number of hp healed = same aggro. Thats the only fair deal here. You *might* get away with 80-90% of CH aggro - but 10-15%? Sorry, thats not even worthy of being considered serious.

Thanks, Stormhaven, for at least attempting to keep the conversation civil.

This "EQCleric lovig mod like [my]self" is with you.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Healing without aggro or aggro so low it is insignificant was breaking the game. [/quote]

Please point out which targets were suddenly made trivial by Druid TR/KR having low agro (Not no agro, btw). The nerfs you are talking about were game breaking. Well, not so much on MOK, but definitely on Donals. It was simple math, if the mob could not kill the target in 30 seconds, the game was automatically won. Somethig similar can be said of Command of Druzel. Unfortunately, since CoD is far overpowered, it looks like all charms spells level 61 and up are going to be nerfed.

I am happy to have an open minded discussion with you about how TR/KR breaks the game if it has low agro. If you prove it to me, I'll even support the nerf (and won;t call it a nerf, I'll call it a fix). The thing is, the only thing clerics are arguing is that CH has a big agro and therefor TR/KR shoud as well. No one has come here and indicated it breaks the game in any way.

Yum,
After your last post, you have my support 100%.

It is not I that decided it was breaking the game sir. You're beef is with Sony, not the clerics. They watch all the servers and decide for themselves what "needs fixed".

Heh heh we dont expect you to love EQClerics Fyrr. But at least you give those of us who play a cleric in EQ a sense of protection here. Let me know what your cummuntity decides needs done.

*edit - there was really no point to that post except for me to start thinking about moving this whole thread to rants.

Mikar,

Your post is so filled with inaccuracies, I am not *even* going to pick them out individually.

The way the Donal's BP effect and Mark of Karn spell operated was too powerful. There's nothing overpowering in our chealing getting lower aggro than cleric chealing. Why do clerics always want to be given something in return for something that we should have to begin with? This isn't balance and it's a not a tradeoff, it's just something that should be. Clerics can take their greed and shove it.

FyyrLuStorm

So - you claim that:

- druids assumed all along that the iCH you asked for would be aggro free? (hmm, funny I dont remember anyone posting that)

- when asked how you would then handle the aggro without DA never said that you would manage because druids know how to handle aggro? (I definitely remember that being posted)

- that there was no thread on this board about iCH having zero aggro posted Nov. 13th

- that the thread on EQclerics from sometime in November - posted by a druid/cleric is responsible? (I admit, there was a mistake as I posted earlier it was by a druid - but I doubt thats what you meant)

Hmm, that doesnt leave a whole lot to be wrong. Its entirely possible I missed other posts on EQclerics - definitely - but for you to just hide behind the "you are wrong!" answer seems too easy.

The so called nerf is called by even some of your mods to be a bug fix. Because they recognize that no heal spell should be causing negligible (no apparent effect on mobs) agro.

If you pull three mobs and cast TR and cast it and cast it and cast it and never get agro, I would say that is pretty broken.

If you go to Creator and you put Druids in the chain and take advantage of the fact that the 1/2 HP healed curse doesnt affect Druid TR AND never get rampage agro with no rampage soakers specifically assigned but the clerics patch healing get healing agro using spells healing for less HPs, Id call that broken.

If you can be PLing and TR someone over and over and never have the mob turn on you Id call that broken.

There are numerous examples of how this spell has some agro problems that are a plus for the players. But it isnt equitable to the game or to class balance. HOWEVER the healing agro as it sits now appears to be too high and should be tuned down. Im for that. The "acceptable" level of agro is going to be a pain to find because I get the feeling that the Devs feel keep lowering it very slowly to find the right risk versus reward for the cast. Personally, I wonder how the heck they playtest stuff like this to generate an "acceptable" level of gameplay but thats another discussion entirely.


Belkram Marrwolf

FACT: Druids DID NOT ask for iCH.
FACT: There was not one word about iCH in the Druid Petition.
FACT: Several months ago a TROLL posted a post asking for CH and Manaburn.
FACT: Most Druids here recognized the post as a troll.

FACT: Druid iCH had too low agro.
FACT: SOE increased it. (Even clerics are saying that the agro is higher than Cleric CH. At best it is equal). That is not a fix.
FACT: Druid iCH agro should be percentage based upon Cleric CH.
FACT: Good Druids DO know how to deal with agro, with or without DA, with or without plate.

At this point I don't care who brought the issue to SOE's attention. In my opinion, that was inevitable.
The reaction, from what I have read on the Cleric and Shaman boards, the complete misstatements of facts, to the gloating, to the "you got what you asked for" positions is what is repugnant to me. Just as repugnant are the Druids here who do not know the facts and are pissing on intelligent discourse with level headed clerics interested enough in the issue to come here to discuss the issue and try to come to consensus.

"Doesn't leave a whole lot to be wrong"? Your first statement, the premise for all your others, is absolutely wrong. Entering into a debate where the opponent's opening premise is wrong, not only "seems too easy", it is, in fact, very easy.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The thing is, the only thing clerics are arguing is that CH has a big agro and therefor TR/KR shoud as well. [/quote]

I guess it's just a difference in interpretation, but the way I've read most cleric's opinions is that iCHs should have a proportionate amount of aggro, not the same amount as CH.

Personally, I have zero issue with iCHs being lower aggro than CH, but having almost no aggro at all seems too powerful to me.

One of the most important aspects of big mob fights is managing initial aggro during the pull/charge. How often have we all wiped to something because the MA didn't get aggro quickly enough and the mob ate all the chain clerics? So what's to stop a raid from having a basically aggroless iCH chain to start a fight, then switch to cleric CH chain after a set amount of time? That would minimalize the chances of heal aggro out-taunting the MA at the start, thus wiping the raid.

I feel safe saying most clerics would have NO problem if an iCH had, as a loose example, half the aggro of a full CH. I *DO* think druids got screwed with this patch... the "fix" was overdone, now you get too much aggro. It needs to be tweaked down a lot.

Another class having a big no-aggro heal unfortunately seems to ressurect a lot those pre-PoP "clerics-feel-our-entire-EQ-existence-is-threatened" feelings =/

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>At this point I don't care who brought the issue to SOE's attention. In my opinion, that was inevitable.
The reaction, from what I have read on the Cleric and Shaman boards, the complete misstatements of facts, to the gloating, to the "you got what you asked for" positions is what is repugnant to me. Just as repugnant are the Druids here who do not know the facts and are pissing on intelligent discourse with level headed clerics interested enough in the issue to come here to discuss the issue and try to come to consensus.[/quote]

If only more players, both cleric and druid, felt the same way =) I'd love all the fingerpointing and flaming to stop, on both sides. I'd love solutions that would make ALL of us happy.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>no heal spell should be causing negligible (no apparent effect on mobs) agro[/quote]

So you are begging SoE to increase the agro on your HoTs then? My understanding is that TR/KR generated comparable agro to HoTs, so I guess you must be.

All this has gone way past the point at which, if it was kids playing monopoly, I'd have long since taken the game away from them for squabbling.

My suggestion, and it's not sarcastic, but certainly meant in the play nice with toys or lose them vein, is to make heals 1 hate/HP actually healed. Simplify things across the board, only one function to worry about.

Obviously some stuff would have to be changed, although dying after every heal could be mitigated somewhat by making the taunt button actually work. As long as timing was good, like in a decent exp group, a taunt after a heal would get the tank back on top, and things would continue like normal. For raid level mobs, you might need a taunt chain with several tanks, as taunt doesn't refresh that often. Multiples would obviously be a dangerous situation, but that's why people get crowd control spells.

<strong> So you are begging SoE to increase the agro on your HoTs then? My understanding is that TR/KR generated comparable agro to HoTs, so I guess you must be.</strong>

When Powerlevelling, pulling a bunch of mobs and then keeping my small alt alive using HoTs, I would always get aggro almost immediately after casting it.

It is my understanding that this does not hold true for the way TR and KR was before, but please correct me if I am wrong.

edit: spelling.

Wow I just did some reading on EQClerics and the Shamans Crucible and its freaking depressing ...

There is no way there can be an alliance with those people - they don't understand squat... they just revel in druid bashing for the sheer fun of it.

1) I'm sick of clerics saying they got squat besides healing so they should be 10X better at it than everyone else. Truth: Besides the much improved heals and the stupid hammers you got nukes (a cleric in my guild gets regular crits for 2200), you get much improved lull that works indoors and outdoors while harmony got super-nerfed, I mean its ridiculous

2) I never want to hear another shaman or cleric whine over snare - news flash: SNARE IS WORTHLESS IN 90% of POP thanks to you all crying for quadding nerfs

3) Don't tell me druids can't control aggro - we have more experience at controlling more agrro with fewer tools and weaker armor than any other class. We dont want zero aggro heals we want heals with gimped aggro in accordance with the fact they are gimped heals.

Geez I'm just pissed off now - I dont want anything resembling an alliance with these people until someone sits them down and tells them how it is! Read the shaman thread - 75% of them dont even know that the aggro was changed since they never bother to heal.

I can't speek to that, Bomb. I have never tried to PL anything.

"FACT: Druids DID NOT ask for iCH"

Wrong - druids did specifically state that it has to be a percentage heal or it too would soon be outdated. I am not talking about your petition here - I am talking about the huge thread spearheaded by Scirocco iirc. So, what you present as fact is false.

"SNARE IS WORTHLESS IN 90% of POP"

Well, depends on what you mean by 90% of PoP. Snare totally owns for aggro kiting in HoH (done that a bit with a druid/necro combo) - and HoH is definitely a prime exp spot for soloers/duoes. I cannot comment on the tier 1 planes though as I never went there for exp. So, exp wise I would say that snare is far from pointless - even if its not as totally essential as it was in say Sebilis.

Anyway - I am pleased to see that the mods here acknowledge that the near zero aggro was a bug because now we can discuss if the fix went overboard or not rather than discuss if a fix was in order at all.

<strong>FACT: Druids DID NOT ask for iCH.</strong>

Wrong. It had long been obvious that Nature's Touch was insufficient healing and by velious it was leaving druids behind paladins and in many cases even necros for healing. Druids were in fact asking for a more efficient heal.

<strong>FACT: There was not one word about iCH in the Druid Petition.</strong>

The druid petition was written by one person or a very small number of people. Anyone posting anything in the poll was moderated out and it was either "agree with us or @#%$ you." Many druids felt the petition did not address druid needs, and it didn't. Things like removal of the 10% healing penalty are frankly laughable. Anyone who thought about it saw how meaningless that was.

<strong>FACT: Several months ago a TROLL posted a post asking for CH and Manaburn.</strong>

I wasn't trolling. Simply, if druids are in fact a utility class then druids should be able to actually do different things. Druids having CH allow druids to heal, not as well as clerics in any but one very narrowly defined way, similarly manaburn was no all there was to being a wizard and druids having that ability would not by any stretch of the imagination let druids reach or suprass wizards. Druids having both of those abilities would leave druids at best a distance second best and only being able to do healing and nuking as well as the "parent" class in 1 single inflexible way, in fact, with manaburn's manadumping the druid would not even be able to usefully do both at once. However druids would have been far better off than the pitiful excuse they were and would have actually been able to contribute something on a raid or in a group

Regardless the druid class was so utterly broken it was laughable and large changes needed to be made. Just take a look at any 57 or lower druid and how ludicrously feeble they are compared to other casters. Best heal... chloroblast, don't make me laugh. The step from 57 to 58 is such an immense power jump it's silly. And thats getting a spell thats not even 40% as efficient as a spell clerics have had for 19 levels.

<strong>FACT: Most Druids here recognized the post as a troll.</strong>

If you're being accurate, then most druids were wrong.

<strong>FACT: Druid iCH had too low agro.</strong>

Wrong. Lets not limit this to druids either. Take a look at the shaman 10 second heal. It is in fact so bad that shamans stop casting it once they get their version of Nature's Infusion. It's only redeeming feature was it's low agro. A similar problem can be seen with TR. It's healing power is not in line with our faster direct heal, nor is it even reasonably close to CH for effectiveness. Again it's primary benefit was low agro.

Druids lack agro reducers. Druids lack low agro heals. Druids lack atone. Druids lack DA/DB/BDA. Druids get a 22 minute refresh, clerics get a 3 minute DvA. Low agro fit in perfectly with the spell. If it wasn't intentional, it should have been. Having such a low HP/sec heal be that inefficient is as laughable as Nature's Touch was in Kunark... barely tolerable when it was introduced and sadly useless even before the next expansion.

<strong>FACT: SOE increased it. (Even clerics are saying that the agro is higher than Cleric CH. At best it is equal). That is not a fix.</strong>

I can't confirm. I'll probably test this tomorrow and have yet to see anyone actually TEST this. I don't care how touchy feely you are, stop claiming untested things as fact.

<strong>FACT: Druid iCH agro should be percentage based upon Cleric CH.</strong>

Wait a second... in other words you're saying TR should generate 1kish agro vs 2.5kish for CH while something likes NI will also generate around 1k. Now, claiming thats a fact is pretty questionable. FACT: Druid iCH agro should be non-existant.

<strong>FACT: Good Druids DO know how to deal with agro, with or without DA, with or without plate.</strong>

Please don't post that as a fact. Anyone that says otherwise is merely holding up a sign that they're a blithering idiot. It saves so much reading of garbage when they do that I'd like the idiots to keep saying it.

<strong>The reaction, from what I have read on the Cleric and Shaman boards, the complete misstatements of facts, to the gloating, to the "you got what you asked for" positions is what is repugnant to me.</strong>

forums.interealms.com/sha...adid=10056 (http://forums.interealms.com/shaman/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10056)

<strong>Just as repugnant are the Druids here who do not know the facts and are pissing on intelligent discourse with level headed clerics interested enough in the issue to come here to discuss the issue and try to come to consensus.</strong>

Saddly if you look at EQClerics any cleric that comes here does so for one purpose, to seek out-of-context ammunition for their class hatred. Yes, it was strange to me and may seem strange to many but often the cleric board is little more than whineing to nerf other classes, and recently the shaman board has taken a remarkably anti-druid tone too, see the thread I linked above.

L1ndara, have you read this thread ?
pub149.ezboard.com/fthedr...D=15.topic (http://pub149.ezboard.com/fthedruidsgrovefrm42.showMessage?topicID=15.topic)
Seems that druids were quite happy with percentage heals witn o aggro. Your board admin even stated the no aggro must have been a mistake.
I the aggro is too high, rest assured Sony will make it "balanced".
Clerics really don't want to be ressing druids as much as we res monks and chanters. It would be better to have them around to heal people we can't get to.

<strong>L1ndara, have you read this thread ?
pub149.ezboard.com/fthedr...D=15.topic (http://pub149.ezboard.com/fthedruidsgrovefrm42.showMessage?topicID=15.topic) </strong>

I think any response I might make to whatever your arguements might be are answered in that very thread.

L1ndara

You are wrong in your last statement that clerics just come here for ammo. Many of us really do want to help. But I am through posting here except for the invited thread by Fyyr. I do want to help you but seeing my class getting continually bashed and blamed does get discouraging also. I understand your frustration, but some of you have such blind hatred towards clerics that I think hell has a better chance of freezing then you ever accepting that we are not all evil.

I actually believe a few of you hate us so much that if I as a person was thirsting to death in the desert, I would not tell you I played a cleric on EQ cause a couple of you would probably deny me water. Think about who the person is playing the character. It could be a real life family member or friend. Surely you have some friends in game who play clerics? Trust me clerics are not some evil entity. Across the board they are made up of the same cross section as every other class. People just trying to have fun in their off time from work or school.

I do post in EQClerics under the name Hakken and if you come over there and want to reasonably discuss anything, I will do my best to make sure you are fairly heard. (realize that I am not a mod or anything so all I can do is ask people to chill out)

Good luck to you and I hope your heal aggro gets straightened out.

Belkram

what class do you play, what guild are you in, what kind of gear do you have?

I have never ever seen you supporting anything excepting weakening of druid class.

Quote Belkram's most recent post:

"HOWEVER the healing agro as it sits now appears to be too high and should be tuned down. Im for that."

<strong>The so called nerf is called by even some of your mods to be a bug fix. Because they recognize that no heal spell should be causing negligible (no apparent effect on mobs) agro.</strong>

For the record, HoTs are heals. They do negligible agro. Druids cannot chloroblast for no agro, but clerics can land better than a chloro of healing ever tick with supernal or heal their group, from say AE, for 1800/tick with ethereal. Druids can SotW for 250/tick every 22 minutes for no mana.

DvA also has some agro, however it's small, combined with EE clerics can every 3 minutes effectivly CH for... negligeable agro.

Many clerics, mine included, will often cast a HoT before casting CH to a) make the damage more predictable/safer, b) reduce overall agro, c) allow CHing later so tanks have more time to acquire agro.

Most if not all clerics will heal riposte, AE etc. i.e. damage (i.e. not being directly caused by mob melee) with HoTs allowing them to do a large portion of their healing job for... negligeable agro.

Divine Intervention which has always been handy but has become greatly useful in some of PoP's short fights has been further boosted by AA, for 0 agro healing.

Please clerics, stop feeding us this line of bull**** that the only heal that exists for clerics and the only method of healing clerics have generates direct healing agro. "No heal spell should generate agro" might wash with druids used to being hit in the head over and over by SOE's nerfbat but some of us druids have a damn clue.

<strong>Quote Belkram's most recent post:

"HOWEVER the healing agro as it sits now appears to be too high and should be tuned down. Im for that." </strong>

400 mana 2925 HP 10 second cast
400 mana 7500 HP 10 second cast

When the war is won, it's easy to be generous to the conqured with their burned lands and salt sewn fields.

Clerics do have low-aggro techniques and tools for healing. That is part of what we get for being healing specialists while druids are not.

HoT spells are buffs, not direct heals. They appear in the buff box, and can be dispelled as easily. A full buff-box will prevent them from landing. As a buff, they generate buffing aggro.

TR and KR are not buffs, they are direct heals. For a nearly 3k heal to generate buff-level aggro was broken, and needed to be fixed. Fixing it to have the same cap as CH was moronic on SOE's part though, granted the reality that druids need to cast it sooner and more often than clerics casting CH.

If druids feel they need low-aggro healing spells, then yall should be asking for versions of our heal over time spells, or for ramped-up short-term regeneration spells. Personally I believe those "fit" the druid class better than iCH, but thats just my opinion.

kegwell said: Seems that druids were quite happy with percentage heals witn o aggro. Your board admin even stated the no aggro must have been a mistake.

Just wanted to say that I read the thread that was mentioned and I was the only Admin who posted on there, and it was to tell two Grover's to stop sniping at each other. Nothing by an Admin on the subject, much less saying anything close to what was suggested above.

Many Druids did ask for a Hot or group heal, the thread about asking for percentage heals was one in many threads where Druids were asking for things. I think at the time many of us were under the belief that Verant would never give us anything resembling CH, and it was even more funny that people actually took the post about asking for CH and something else that Lindara wrote seriously. We were surprised as anyone that they gave us TR, at least i was. I really thought we'd get a hot and maybe group heal.

But i also think there needs to be more than one class that can direct heal and carry a group. Sitting around for a Cleric all day isnt fun, and i still go through that crap these days to do some harder POP camps. Seems we can get most any class to fill in for whatever role but a Cleric oftentimes, even raiding-wise, we cut nights short because no Clerics. Its definitely the biggest obstacle thats come up lately in terms of raiding and putting exp groups together for more difficult places. We were ok pre-POP after just having received TR, but POP brought encounters to a new lvl, and required more of the tools a Cleric has at their disposal. TR seemed like a great thing at the time, but not-so-great for POP style encounters where its mostly about quick big heals, group heals for raiding, and hot's to lighten aggro. I dont think it can be argued that Cleric-desirability went back to what it was pre-TR after POP was released, basically wanted more than any other class in a POP group.

Whats unfair is many of you acting as though TR carried no aggro when it did. It may not have been much, but ever think that was to compensate for our lack of DA or lowering aggro spell? I know i've had adds come at me from healing with TR, so the exxagerations of aggro free healing are off base. You may have had some mods say it was a bug, but i think it was the way it was on purpose. I remember they even held TR back on a patch day for more testing on TC. They had to know the aggro associated with it back in the day. Maybe later they changed their mind and thought it should have more aggro than it should, but that would mean it wasnt a bug.

The blind hatred came from your side first Brum through envy. If clerics weren't so jealous of things they wrongly percieve as making druids 'all-powerful'(a false assumption) then this hatred wouldn't have started.

I just got really tired of moderating this thread so I moved it into the Rant's pit.

Thanks Stormhaven.

All this bashing has really gotten past the point of being bearable to even read.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But i also think there needs to be more than one class that can direct heal and carry a group. Sitting around for a Cleric all day isnt fun, and i still go through that crap these days to do some harder POP camps. [/quote]

I couldn't agree more. I don't like the groans I get from groups when I am finally too tired to keep playing and there is no sign of another LFG cleric anywhere. I want druids to be able to main heal groups, albeit not as well as a cleric for obvious reasons (insert the well-loved "the yall can solo for xp, clerics can't" argument here ;) )

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>POP brought encounters to a new lvl, and required more of the tools a Cleric has at their disposal. TR seemed like a great thing at the time, but not-so-great for POP style encounters where its mostly about quick big heals, group heals for raiding, and hot's to lighten aggro. I dont think it can be argued that Cleric-desirability went back to what it was pre-TR after POP was released, basically wanted more than any other class in a POP group.[/quote]

Agreed again, but a direct 3khp heal with buff-level (roughly) aggro was broken. Trust me when I say that if I had that spell I would use it in preference to all my others except when necessary to do otherwise. Clerics use HoT spells as a delaying tactic and patching/topping off device, not as life saving heals.

I would have no problem with druids having HoT style spells that operated under all the same restrictions that they work for me. They are situationally usefull, and can be a blessing when I need to let a MT get sufficient aggro, or for them to survive while a mob isn't yet slowed, long enough for me to cheal them.

Having a druid main healer be a "gimped cleric" works to promote cleric desirability, or at least prevent druid desirability as main healer from exceeding cleric desirability. Why take a cleric as healer when a druid can do the job, and more? Rez/buffs never got us groups during SoL/pre-PoP days after all ;-) If nothing else, that era served to illustrate the weakness inherent in the cleric class (namely outside of healing, we don't provide that much to groups) and has (hopefully) taught the dev/game-balance teams that clerics need to be the preferred healers.

The balance that needs to be struck here is this: How do we give druids the tools necessary to allow xp groups to happen without clerics, while not making them so good at healing (relative to mob damage output) that they become preferred over clerics for their additional abilities? My personal belief is that druid level healing should be about 50% as effective as cleric-level healing in most situations, and that is balanced against your ability to be other things than main-healer of a group.

This is an area that really needs some good collaborative discussion between our classes. It requires clerics to understand that there aren't enough of us to go around at times, and to accept that people still want to have fun and go xp. However, it requires druids to be sympathetic to the fact that we have no options for xp outside of groups, and we bring very little outside of healing to groups. I don't subscribe to the notion that druids should "just STFU and go quad" - the game is built around grouping after all, and I don't want clerics to have a monopoly on healing (repeating this point for emphasis - I'm not a druid hater.)

At least, it was a very good way of demonstrating there is no way for any kind of alliance to exist... Four years into this game has generated to much class hatred on the boards (mainly).

I mean, what were you thinking?

Someone ban me from this board please, or else I'm gonna be unable to stop reading trash like the above.

I agree Zarros, but i'm not sure Druids and Clerics can really come to a middle group where both will be happy. I think its up to Verant to reach that middle ground, but who knows what Verants thinking~

On a side note, i dont know why this was moved to rants over 1 or 2 posters. /sigh

I like pie

mmmmm pie




pie pie pie pie pie pie pie pie!

What sort of pie?

I like coconut cream personally.

hmm apple or peach pie please : )

Come to my place and I will show you what kind and just how much

Whhoohhhooo

O.o

Poor Teri,

The other girls are always stealing the most interesting men..

=(

Teri I think there is enough Ligge to go around he is a halfing after all. I have heard some interesting stories about halfings after all. :| )

If you are referring to the unsatiable appetites you are 100% correct.

As for the rest... well I can neither confirm nor deny the rumors and allegations.

hmm..

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Someone ban me from this board please, or else I'm gonna be unable to stop reading trash like the above.[/quote]My post was trash? /shrug :evil:

/throw a pie at Ligge

<-- had lemon meringue pie for lunch

Bah, not yours ellendihl, yours got posted before mine.

L1ndara,

Well my memory of things just are different than yours.

We did ask for better healing than NT, but the consensus at the time was for a good HoT or group heal. For various reason iCH was discounted. If you think that removal of the 10% penalty was negligable, just think about the effort you would put into getting a peice of gear that only increases your effectiveness only 10%, or how many AA's you would put into it.

And as I said at the time, what was asked for was only to bring us up to balance at that 'snapshot in time". It did not at all take into consideration, what was currently in the works at that time, nor of anything to come in the up and coming expansion PoP. It was, and many non-druids will find this arguable, very conservative; and needed to be.

The petition was a culmination of work from this community and it's posters. The overall process of whittleing it and honing it into a 'manifesto', if you will, took over 6 weeks, with suggestions and debate of all the major issues. The actual petition that you refer to not allowing discussion was just that, the petition in it's final and printed draft. It was not the 'proof' copy, there were several of those available for you to discuss and debate. If you missed them, well then, you missed out.

The TROLL post I was referring to, was the one by Hurzurdaddy(sp), that is the one that garnered the most interest(one that our Cleric visitors may remember as well). And most Druids here did see his thread as a troll. Maybe you indeed started that thread, but I don't think so.

TR's agro was too low. While not zero, it was essentially such. As Scirocco posted already, it was at the default value(think about what that means). I just don't understand your position that a heal spell(almost 3K and above) should generate next to no agro. That is fundamentally wrong with the mechanics of the game as it stands. That position is utterly undefendable.

"I can't confirm. I'll probably test this tomorrow and have yet to see anyone actually TEST this. I don't care how touchy feely you are, stop claiming untested things as fact."

Like I said, Because of the wording of the patch message, TR can be hitting higher than the CH cap because it is treated as a traditional heal in regards to agro, or it is hitting the CH cap. Either case, logically that does not make any sense. iCH heals should cap out as their percentage of max healing in regards to CH; which does make sense.

I said "Good Druids" for a reason, I was actually addressing a point made in a previous post, that was deleted. I am sure you are a good Druid, I am sure that you know how to ride that crest of agro in most situations(pre-patch). The agro with this patch does not allow for that in many situations. Having to chain iCH with (as per the patch message) agro that is close to double and triple what the agro of CH is, and getting killed because of it, does not make one a Bad Druid. And when iCH gets adjusted to what it *should* be agro wise, the good Druids will no doubt have no problems adjusting with it.

And, I may have my polly-anna glasses on, but I disagree with you in regards to the Clerics who are coming here. You may disagree with my kid gloves thread, I don't know about you, but I learned some things from it. Things that would not, and do not, come out in the other types of threads that are on the front page now.

If you wish to return the class envy/spite that is evident over at the other class boards, that's your prerogative. I choose not to. I play the game with other people and other classes. I just don't think that those boards are representative of the people I play with. And I certainly do think that posting "Nerf CH" threads is counter productive, and well just plain re-tarded.

Alternately, there are a few, now many, Cleric posters who have come here and made well reasoned and logical posts. Some of the things I disagree with, but they have as much right to post here as you or I do.

I thought the derailed segment of this thread was much more interesting and congenial.

Can we add a little jello throwing to this? I like green jello myself.

/grabs some jello and eyes the room for a target

Raey

Ok, ok, ok.

/smile

I like Hot Baken-ets.


Pure unadulterated decadence.

Oh jello can be fun too, but can we invite Teri and Chenier too?

pie...jello...hot baken-ets...

is there some innuendo I am missing?

No innuendo from me.

Everyone else likes pie. Half my guild likes pie.

I don't.

I just plain like Baken-ets.


I also liked, about a year ago, seeing in big bold letters "New Bigger Bag!". Still had 8 oz. in it, but yes, the bag *was* bigger.

Truthfully, I like pie when its done well. I like my coconut cream pie very custardlike and less whipped. If I can't have my pie the way I want it, then I want a good old fashioned hot fudge sundae with nuts and cherry and whipped cream.

Ligge wasn't offering that, though..

/sigh

I hate pie, unless its pecan !!

trying to get sig to work again, nm me :)

eep wrong code try this !! ; )

bah too big !!