We have all read and reread the official comments from Verant that all three of the priest classes should be able to solo, have a needed role in groups and have a needed role for raids. In fact, the following quote has become a battle cry for justice (balancing) for many of us.

All priests should offer a similar level of value in solo, group and raid situations, and they won't be considered balanced until this is true. Rich Waters

Recognizing that our perception, of which of those classes may need the most tuning to bring the priest classes back into balance, may be biased, a druid need only look at Test Server Address to find comfort that we have not imagined the inequities that our class suffers.

Clerics are an unusual class as at high levels they become mandatory for raid encounters,

It should be possible to have any priest class function as an effective healer,

Whether desired by each of the individual players who play the classes or not, the following must be accomplished by the development team:
1. Clerics, druids and shaman must have the ability to solo efficiently
2. Clerics, druids and shaman should be able to be the effective healer for any group
3. Clerics, druids and shaman should be effective healers for raids

For some reason (loudest whining), it appears that Verant first seeks to complete those goals with the clerics. A positive for us in this is that Verant didn't "dumb down", so to speak, the healing of clerics to rebalance the disturbing monopoly that clerics have enjoyed for so long in the group and raid categories. Instead, the clerics were given even greater healing capabilities than they already had when Verant acknowledged the unbalanced healing capabilities among the priests. The remainder of the cleric rebalancing was directed at their ability to solo efficiently and has the net effect of creating more competition for soloable mobs.

Shaman may not want it, but they will likely be given greater spell capabilties to be the effective healer of any group and to effectively heal on raids. Their abiltiy to solo is already a WOW. However, the shaman may benefit as the clerics did with the patch that made them even better healers. Perhaps the shaman will become even better buffers along with better healing.

So, what must be to come for druids? I am sure we all agree that we solo efficiently as it is. Since we cannot heal any group effectively (for many mobs, it would be laughable for a druid to try), we would get greater healing abilities for grouping. Since we are not effective enough healers for raids, we would also be gaining the ability to effectively heal in raids also. Recalling the boon to the cleric healing abilities that was already admitted to be unbalanced, it is possible that druids may get some goodies where we haven't felt a need.

Paramount to my theory is that Verant does indeed recognize that clerics presently enjoy a near monopoly for raid healing and GROUP healing at the high end of the game (we wouldn't be talking raids if we weren't already talking the high end). I am concerned that this isn't the case though. In the same Test Server Address quoted above, the line saying "but often thought of as unneeded in high level groups" as though it was a condition not felt by others or even that it was beneath the experiences of a cleric made me cringe. If Verant perceives it as a problem that clerics are often thought of as unneeded in high level groups, then nothing will change for us as druids. Well, except that we now have clerics sharing our soloable mobs with us when they don't want to group or raid.

I realize that druids can heal in many camps for a group and can assist with spot heals in raids. But we are not the first choice unless the other classes in the group make it suitable for us to be in the group also. This has to do with priests, not other class capabilities and certainly not how good Joe Bob is at healing (I enjoy reading the display of delusional arrogance though).

Assuming that the Verant folks are honorable and post with integrity, it looks as though the clerics are the first of the three priest classes to get balanced. I assume that druids and shaman will be getting as much attention and feeling the same level of concern from Verant. It is likely that these new and improved clerics will be the benchmark for our own corrections. I hope Verant acts with more urgency in correcting the greatest imbalance in the game and implements the healing changes for the other priest classes immediately. My fear is that we druids are the red headed step children to the developers and while it is a problem to them that clerics often are thought of as unneeded in groups, it is ok that druids and other classes are thought of in the same way.

PS
The 75 percent Incomplete Heal would be insulting considering the mandate as established by Verant to bring the priests into balance. One should think getting Complete Heal 15 levels later sufficiently renders a druid as a less efficient a healer than a cleric. Do we compare our level 39 nukes to a cleric's level 54 nukes for efficiency? Maybe we should.

"For some reason (loudest whining), it appears that Verant first seeks to complete those goals with the clerics."

Why would you want to take the already most desired class and make it better? I think VI made a stupid choice to buff clerics first. If anything you should start out with the most gimp class and start to bring them up to a moderate level of desirability.

Why would you want to take the already most desired class and make it better? I think VI made a stupid choice to buff clerics first. If anything you should start out with the most gimp class and start to bring them up to a moderate level of desirability.
This is exactly how Verant did the mele balancing. They evaluated the mele classes and chose the warrior as the benchmark. They then evaluated the warrior as the benchmark to determine if he was found wanting in any areas. When it was determined that the warrior was balanced they then balanced the other mele classes in respect to the warrior.

Now, I don't think Verant chose to do the clerics first just because of loudest whining. Clearly clerics ARE the baseline of the healer classes. When verant looked at Clerics however, they were found to be not balanced either. So they chose to bring the cleric into balance. Once the clerics are balanced, if they follow pervious historical patterns, they will begin to balance the other classes in regard to the cleric.

Now, this being said, I would have ratherd the druids be balanced first for purely selfish reasons. ;) The way Verant appears to be going about it does make sense though.

Why would you want to take the already most desired class and make it better? I think VI made a stupid choice to buff clerics first. If anything you should start out with the most gimp class and start to bring them up to a moderate level of desirability.

If you need to balance 3 classes with eachother, and 1 is stronger(and is supposed to be) than others in the area you want balanced, the logical step would be to put that class(and the max) exactly where you want them(it), and then balance the others using that as a comparison.

Even if it isnt too fair to the already weak class, its the easiest way to get it right without having to make too many changes.

looks like someone was typing a reply at the same time :P

Reading is a good skill to learn, here is what Rich did say:

It's important that clerics maintain their role as the premier healer of the game. Raid quality heals are being added for other priests to allow them to fulfill their role as secondary healers in most situations. Clerics have always been a healing specialist, but the situation has escalated such that many raid level encounters may not be undertaken without disproportionally large numbers of clerics. No other class has been able to fill in if a cleric is absent, and healing is too important of a role to allow one class to dominate it so completely. After these changes are complete, clerics will still be the very best of healers but other priests class are able to substitute to some degree.

Please tell me exactly where it says druids / shamans are to replace clerics in raids? Or to heal every group? Read it again, Secondary healer on raids and in MOST situation. Not primary healer in every situation. For the qoute that is so popular to claim on (and feel free to re read the whole part for a change). The value mentioned does not mean equal healing or nuking etc. It is a question of a precived value from all the things a class can do soloing/grouping/raiding... So next time try to use the whole qoute instead when you are making a argument...

Reading is a good skill to learn. Dangrim

Yes, it is. Try it out.

Your own selective comprehension is limiting your ability to be logical. From your quote, I don't see any of the quotes that I used.

Where do you get the notion that anyone would "replace" clerics in raids? Possibly because they shouldn't have a monopoly and shouldn't be any more or less subject to substitution than any other other class.

Feel free to read the post instead of what you would rather read.

Thanks for answering my question, it makes alot more sense to me now. How much longer am I going to have to sit at the bottom of the desirablity pool though. Perhaps I should be complaining for VI to step on it and get it done, rather than how they do it.

And it would seem to me the druid community has a habit of latching onto one sentence of a post by Rich Waters and not reading the rest of it as well.

Pot, kettle, black.

If the one sentence is a mission statement, it does hold some importance.

The entire post had some importance. And if you guys would get off this kick of replacing clerics everywhere in the game, you might realise that.

if VI is smart...it'll give druids the fastest casting heal spell in the game for the worst heal/mana ratio. think this would balance the druid's raid function without hurting the clerics in groups too badly...if at all.

1400hp for 585 mana or 2000 heal for 833.

this way, druids can cast a "big" heal spell on raid members that are in serious hurt while clerics still maintain their role as primary healers in exp groups. the awful health/mana ratio will make having multiple druids a non issue..as most will cast about 4 or 5 max before going oom. furthermore, a druid wouldn't want to cast this too much unless they want to get good beating from mob_X.

And if you guys would get off this kick of replacing clerics everywhere in the game,

LOL. How dare we want to join groups and raids. It is horrible to think that clerics might be thought of as not neccessary to every group like the rest of us. Heaven forbid, a druid might get some loot instead of you!

if VI is smart...it'll give druids the fastest casting heal spell in the game for the worst heal/mana ratio

OR, leave clerics as master of healing and having best array of spells and give druids a level 39 cleric spell called Complete Heal so druids can also be the effective healer for a group and be effective in raids.

My recommendation when dealing with Clerics posting on this board is to ignore them. The only interest they have is maintaining their dominance in raids and in the hardest (and now most beneficial) xp groups. They are the enemy and I would not waste my time talking to them, unless, of ocourse it is to tell them off and you enjoy that sort of thing, but don't acknowledge them with rational arguement.

My recommendation when dealing with Clerics posting on this board is to ignore them. The only interest they have is maintaining their dominance in raids and in the hardest (and now most beneficial) xp groups. They are the enemy and I would not waste my time talking to them, unless, of ocourse it is to tell them off and you enjoy that sort of thing, but don't acknowledge them with rational arguement.
That, frankly, is horrible advice.

I tend to disagree with that. Clerics are not the enemy VI is. I do not want to replace clerics, I want to be able to co-exist.

I don't care if we get better heals IF we get an ability/spell/function that is wanted or needed on end game raids. As it stands now I think even the clerics will agree that we are underpowered in said situation.

The thing is druids and clerics both will never be happy if the other has one more member on a raid.

but let's examine it more closely,

Druids are better at DD and DoTs
Clerics are better at healing

THUS druids solo better than clerics and clerics get to go on raids... the simple solution to bring us inline with each other is to take our DD's or DoT's away from us and give us the clerics healing spells, leaving them in place on the clerics.

Now I know most druids and clerics will hate this idea but think about it a bit.

This way druids in the end game get to raid and and clerics get to solo bringing us inline with each other AND it accomplishes what VI wants. It makes us druids group a bit more while giving clerics a little bit of solo ability.

Even if you leave the DD's or DoT's in place on the druids and give them to the clerics as well it would bring us in line (if you give us the same heals) with the clerics and would allow us to be more raid friendly. But if we dont get beat with the nerf stick to get a better ability to raid some class will scream how over powered we are...

Drafin

No, as they've said its not a zero sum thing. There is no "benchmark."

I personally thought clerics, shamans and druids were perfect the way they were previous to all this hubbub. The Dot stacking thing was more than enough for me.

I thought paladins and shadowknights were the only classes in the game who had anything to gripe about. I still think that, even with SK's token enchanter like abilities.

My recommendation when dealing with Clerics posting on this board is to ignore them. The only interest they have is maintaining their dominance in raids and in the hardest (and now most beneficial) xp groups. They are the enemy and I would not waste my time talking to them, unless, of ocourse it is to tell them off and you enjoy that sort of thing, but don't acknowledge them with rational arguement.





lol someone takes this game to seriously heh' yeah keep telling yourself Im the "enemy"






Venerable Vamenea Deryther
60th High Priest of Innoruuk
Tholuxe Paells Server

>My recommendation when dealing with Clerics posting on this
>board is to ignore them. The only interest they have is
>maintaining their dominance in raids and in the hardest (and
>now most beneficial) xp groups. They are the enemy and I
>would not waste my time talking to them, unless, of ocourse
>it is to tell them off and you enjoy that sort of thing, but
>don't acknowledge them with rational arguement.

Ya! Damn! This guy is awesome! He is so right!

Better ignore anyone who don't play a druid.

So you can continue to live in your nice world where the poor underpowered druids are forced to solo dragons and ice burrowers because the mighty overpowered clerics continue to rule the world with all the power of the CH and reses they own with greed.

Live in a wonderfull world where you can continue to ask for Wizard power combined with Cleric power at the same time thinking it's completely right, and maybe ask monk FD too to manage agro from both CH and Nukes (ya hard to cope with agro with all this, even more with snare agro ! imagine !), and maybe twice the manapool of others classes since you have to do 2 roles.

Damn it's so easy, after all it's just like shopping.

Aaaah living with your head in your @#%$ is going to open up large perspectives for you, you must be a interessing person.

Uh, yeah. That's exactly what we want. :lol:

Clerics are not the "enemy". There is no enemy, really. The closest thing to an enemy would be VI.

I'm so glad the sterotype of my class has met up with the sterotype of the cleric class. We're all just so mature here in this thread today. Seriously, show some common courtesy to eachother. It's not like one person personally went to VI and said "Make sure xxx sucks! I want to have a monopoly!". =P

Not every non-Druid is the enemy and should be ignored, just Clerics. Someone posted something on here about Graffe's, but for all their whining, you don't usually see them collectively petitioning VI to nerf us. Clerics do.

"Make sure xxx sucks! I want to have a monopoly!". =P

Umm, please, go over to EQClerics and read any thread about Druid healing. That is pretty much exactly what they say. They don't ask for us to "suck" of course, but they may as well, as they talk about how we are good enough (though now that they got that huge healing buff in the 9/4 patch, some actually think it is ok for us to get gimp heal now). Then they do ask VI to make sure they keep their monopoly. "If Druids get x, they will be desirable in groups." That is the typical nerf call from Clerics. Don't take my word for it, if it is still up, go read the novel posted by EQClerics when gimp heal went on test - that was the mantra running through all 300+ posts on that thread.

Of course, every Cleric is not the enemy, but it is a good enough shortcut, and you can easily identify the ones worth acknowledging by what they say. The Cleric community on EQClerics, generally, is the enemy. VI was ready to give us balance, or nearly so, in healing. Then EQClerics threw a hissy fit and suddenly all work on Druids stopped until VI could rushout the door all the Cleric buffs in the 9/4 patch. It is them, not VI. You can fault VI for having no backbone, but EQClerics is the root cause.

I'd like to be desirable in groups...some nights in my guild we only have 2-3 clerics on and if we're doing exp grouping, the clerics get snapped up fast and then nobody wants me for a main healer. :|

Or we'll be raiding and the mob is up, but we're all sitting on our thumbs because "we're waiting for clerics to log in." I'm tired of hearing that. We shouldn't have to have the high-end game so totally dependent on one class.

I wouldn't go so far as to say clerics as a whole are the enemy, but the VAST majority of trolls here and druid haters in general are clerics, which makes it hard to keep a level head when dealing with them as a community. Many of them seem to want it two ways - they want to be able to solo on par with other priest classes, while keeping the group/raid monopoly. Based on what Waters has said and the changes already live, i think it isnt unfair to assume clerics will be soloing just fine by the time priest balancing is over... but, unless VI disregards the customer (clerics), the cleric community WILL probably be keeping us from getting a fair shot at group/raid balance. The difference is that the vast majority of the druid community is totally pro cleric solo, where as it seems alot of clerics are against druids getting any healing upgrades whatsoever, and even more against us getting anything beyond the gimped CH. And, face it, group/raid desirability is more important in the endgame then soloing. Nobody gets to 60+aa so they can just say "I win" and quit. End game EQ is based around raiding, this is where clerics currently have the upper hand and it's alot harder to work against them when they obviously dont want to share their role.

Funny we got an invite to go to a Priest Forum here and were assaulted by a 10:1 argument if we brought up any point, and God Forbid if a Mellee tried to interject any opinion contrary to a Druid's viewpoint. That whole thread was nothing more than a trap in my opinion, you can't invite people for discussion then just talk about yourself and tell everyone to stop stating their own needs and concentrate on yours.

Can clerics Solo now? Of course not, no way in hell. So are we balanced? Of course not. Are we ever gonna be balanced? Nope, no way. The minute we got some nice abilities the howls from this site were truly amazing, so many people saying they were gonna quit, while never looking at the possibilities of DOT stacking and Epic fixing you got. Granted the exp nerf (short lived) was stupid, but It really wasn't such a bad day was it?

Due to the outrage Clerics can root/nuke or mellee with about equal inefficiency, grats to you all for that.

What you will probably do now is rip me for this, as you rip anyone who has a contrary viewpoint. Druids need a fast heal for 2k, 600 mana in 5 seconds. That is the perfect spell for you. A group heal like healing wave of prexus is needed as well. That will make you set. But any more HP healed than that and the delay will go up, no doubt in my mind there. My Complete averages 2.5k and costs 400 mana and that can never get shorter or cheaper, with focus effects and specialization the 2k, 600 mana heal should be quite efficient.

But honestly, you really need to ask yourself if you are being good hosts, please don't invite someone to a conversation and then just talk about yourself and insult everything contrary to what you think.

Have a nice day :)

I'm not denying there are some individuals that act that way twards us. But by your logic, Aaeamdar, they are just as justified to say the things they do with how it's generally met here. I'm not trying to make excuses for the obviously crude posts, but it goes both ways.

Whatever they say on their class board is their own business. This here is our community. Only what's said here matters to us as a class. Someone has to stand up and be the better man, so to speak. Two wrongs don't make a right. Etc, etc..

I've been reading both the cleric and (both?) druid
boards following the tempest of priest class balancing
as I have all three low level toons (Druid, Shammie, cleric). My main is an Ogre BL FYI.

I think one issue with the class balancing the Verant must be wrestling with is that it seems that druids outnumber clerics by a large margin. Is this true? The polls over at allakhazams indicated that druids are one of the most popular classes. Some posts have indicated as much as a 3 to 1 ratio. If true it says something about how much fun each of the classes might be :(

In playing my toons, the shammie and druid are a blast to play compared to the cleric, so I can see where it takes a lot of dedication to level the cleric up (assuming not PL'd, which may be what is happening more now).

If shammies and druids are actually as useful as clerics for healing in the normal exp grind, given the numbers I can see why they would be worried. As the main thing they bring to a group is tank healing and resses and buffs.

The funny thing is, given the popularity and numbers of druids, even if they were given a raid role, would there still be complaining because there were too many for too few spots?

Unless you can run an all druid raid guild :)

>Of course, every Cleric is not the enemy, but it is a good
>enough shortcut, and you can easily identify the ones worth
>acknowledging by what they say. The Cleric community on
>EQClerics, generally, is the enemy. VI was ready to give us
>balance, or nearly so, in healing. Then EQClerics threw a hissy
>fit and suddenly all work on Druids stopped until VI could
>rushout the door all the Cleric buffs in the 9/4 patch. It is
>them, not VI. You can fault VI for having no backbone, but
>EQClerics is the root cause.

I am a cleric, and read most eq class boards with different frequence and post there time to time.

Now read what follow by looking at it as a player of a game focusing on fun, not as a component of a raid or from a large picture of class ballance, just 1 players who want to play a game, and choose click the EQ icon instead of Quake.

Take note too, that not everything I write here affect me directly, I am a cleric of a Tier 2 guild, I group only with guild people, and have a SK pet I work on on a 2nd account to do xp alone.

If you put yourself into a cleric shoes (pre-patch), the price you pay in versatility to be the best in one discipline is very high, the highest price than any other class pay, we for sure are the very best in one very necessary discipline, a discipline that is stackable so the more we are on a raid the more are the chances of success, but that's only one role, it doesn't bring you as much fun that being versatile and being able to do lots of things bring. (This last sentence is the general clerics vision I guess, but I only speak for myself)

So we pay our "indispensability"(I hope this is a english word) very high, but we learned to accept the idea as it, we took the confort to find groups easily as the compensation, and lived with it a very long time.

When first I learned that druids were getting a limited version of CH, I was among those who panic and tought that cleric class would not be worth it to play out of a raid.

But it's not the fact druids get CH that was the true problem, it's the fact that a cleric was doing nothing else to really feel usefull, or to have fun alone out of healing pressure, so bringing even a limited version of CH to others priests who can do lots of others things, was like giving away the only thing that was giving us a reason to play our char in 80% of situations.

You can tell me I am wrong, and that new druid CH is not so good, but let me tell you that in a normal group situation, if I stick to only healing, my mana bar NEVER go under 80-90% (I got about FT8 + lunar whispers(FT2) with items actualy and 4150 mana pool), so usualy I was not sitting anyway but getho meleein for fun with my brawl stick and nuking once or twice per mob and still keep up with mana.

So most clerics knew that the discipline we are the best at, is not needed to that extent, that by giving CH to a druid, you will be strong enough to not go under 70% mana if you stick to only heals in the same group and time them well, but at the same time you got plenty of others things to do, so we were left with the question "why still play a cleric as main?".

Ok, what I point here bring to nowhere, except trying to explain why clerics reacted with fear, and that the only thing clerics where asking for, is more fun.

Now there's alway black sheep in any crowd, I read sometimes stuff on DG board that make me laugh, as I do on cleric boards, but class doesn't define the people behind, there's lots of different opinions/cultures in EQ, and people more moderated than others, you need to see the nuances and not judge a whole community on some presumptions.

Actualy I start to trust new development team in Verant, they react quickly and do what is needed to do (the hammer nerf and reimplemetation was a very quick and good move imho), I am confident that we go the right way.

Elawnah,
I am not saying that we should sink to their level. I would never suggest the kind of class bashing that goes on at EQClerics. I am certainly not now calling for, nor have I ever called for, nerfs to Clerics. That is deplorable. I would never suggest using the disgusting tactics of the enemy. I am just saying that you will enjoy your experience on this board much more if you just ignore the Clerics that post here. They are just like any other troll here, so don't feed them anything, and hopefully they will go away.

Aaeamdar, you are some kind of nazy lover ? A extremist fascist or communist ? Or a 10 year old child who is not aware of what he is really saying ?

That's the kind of information/communication censure I really hate.


Aidon: Personal Attacks and especially statements perceptible as a personal threat IRL are not acceptable on these boards.

And calling someone a "nazi faggot" and wishing them death, as you so elloquently put it, makes you any better, how?

I feel like I'm in the 4th grade all over again.

My dad > Your dad. :lol:

Mods,
Please IP ban LyphNmar. There is more than enough in his or her lasst post to warrant it. I'd also appriciate him or her being reported to their ISP for the RL threat. (Possibly not a threat, but it is too hard to distinguish between "I want you dead" and "I am going to kill you") Thanks.

I am a cleric, you should not be reading my posts.

Can clerics Solo now? Of course not, no way in hell. So are we balanced? Of course not. Are we ever gonna be balanced? Nope, no way.


That is really more of an opinion than anything else, isn't it? I hear of clerics soloing with their new abilities. Granted, it's not anything like anyone expected but, the soloing is there.


The minute we got some nice abilities the howls from this site were truly amazing, so many people saying they were gonna quit, while never looking at the possibilities of DOT stacking and Epic fixing you got. Granted the exp nerf (short lived) was stupid, but It really wasn't such a bad day was it?


Ah yes. DoT stacking. While DoT stacking is a great thing, it's not nearly the huge boon to druids as many would like to believe. In groups and raids, it's a slight, very slight, bonus as now you can have two or more druids in the same group using DoT's without worrying about being over written by another druid.

By level 59, DoT stacking isn't doing anything for druids. Why? Because Winged Death, our best DoT, isn't efficient enough to use over Wildfire or Moonfire. Especially on raids.

WD does 3.7HP of damage per mana point.
Wildfire does 3.2
Moonfire does 3.6

Now take into account two things.
1. About half of all druids specialized in Evocation. That alone is enough to put Wildfire at the same Damage/mana ratio as WD

2. At raids Druids will usually have access to Focus Items. Without specializing in Evocation, the Wildfire gets as good as 3.9 while moonfire can get a stunning 4.3! No druid is going to opt for DoT damage when they can be more efficient casting DD's.

Once AA's come into play, it's not even close. Druid DoT's are left far behind Druid DD's.

DoT stacking effected Shaman and Necro's far greater as their DD's aren't even close to the power of their DoT's. Prior to DoT stacking Necro's and Shaman(other than the single shaman for slowing/debuffing) were only good for Twitching and buffing on raids.

In reality, DoT stacking only helps Druids very little and almost no help from 59 all.

As far as "epic fixing" goes. It was needed. And big time. Especially since more and more mobs (even some green mobs) were totally immune to the epic due to the snare. The snare also meant our epic effect was overwritten by Bonds of Tunare (non damaging AE snare), The Necro epic effect, and a few other spells. Now our epic is almost as usefull as a Shaman Epic.

Aawulf,
To answer your initial question, I would have to say no. You just have to compare "priest" balancing with what happened with melee balancing to see that.

When balancing melee, VI first adjusted the Warriors, then used them as a benchmark to balance other melee. Regardless of whether anyone may think they were successful long term, that is what their process was.

Here, they started "preist" balancing by making adujstments to the non-Cleric. Presumably (or so I thought at the time), this was because where healing was concerned, Clerics were the benchmark and that benchmark was set. This started with the 10% penalty removal and eventaully proceded to the placement of the two gimp heals on test. Then Clerics cried and VI responded by stopping all other work on priests and gave Clerics a bunch of new spells (hasily thrown together and untested).

Thos pattern does not look like the case of setting the Cleric benchmark to balance other "priests" around, as as they did with melee and Warriors.

Alright, let's cut to the chase here.

Druids need some healing upgrade, yes. No doubt, no arguement, point conceded. However, the arguement comes in how much healing.

It's important that clerics maintain their role as the premier healer of the game. Raid quality heals are being added for other priests to allow them to fulfill their role as secondary healers in most situations.


After these changes are complete, clerics will still be the very best of healers but other priests class are able to substitute to some degree.


That right there tells me that druids and shaman will never be as good of healers as clerics, but does open the door for them to be close. So forget about getting the whole CH. It also pegs you guys as secondary healers. The second quote shows you should be able to substitute to some degree but not as efficiently as a cleric.

I'm not sure if you guys actually read the whole statement by Rich or if you just read the tag line of a few of your fellow druids and thought that was the entire post.

We are the master healers. We always have been (and now are the gap is too wide, agreed), but we will always be. If the druid community wants to be taken seriously, they need to offer up ideas that are in line with everything Rich said, and not just pick and chose their quotes where it suits their interests.

Setting a benchmark class and tuning other classes to it makes sense from a procedural point of view.


If that is indeed what happens, fine.


As for reading, I think more clerics need to read this section of what Rich said:

No other class has been able to fill in if a cleric is absent, and healing is too important of a role to allow one class to dominate it so completely.

You are going to give up some of your lock on healing, accept that. Having one class hold a monopoly on such an important aspect of the game is not good game design.

Sometimes it's hard for people to read the "fine" print. :)

To demand to be an equal healer with a cleric is absurd. I don't think anyone is asking that either. The heal improvement IS nice though. I think regardless of whether the topic revolves around the heal, DoT's, melee, etc....Druids want or desire a level playing feel in "Need Factor."

Player One: We NEED a cleric to do this.
Player Two: We can get by with a druid or shaman.

This was very much the case in the lower and mid level game where you COULD get by with a shaman or a druid as healers in your group in a crunch. LIO, DL, etc. It's the high end game where improvement is apparently needed.

>You are going to give up some of your lock on healing, accept
>that. Having one class hold a monopoly on such an important
>aspect of the game is not good game design.

I guess the clerics who deny that are a minority all in all.

What clerics are replying is just : "You are going to give up some of your lock on damage, accept that."

It's more hard for your than it is for us in fact, just look at half the thread of this board, it's "OMG <Clerics/Wizards> got <insert here a spell>, wich does <insert here extrapolated stats with some exagerations and omissions> then we need <insert here another spell>!!!".

Clerics major concern is groups availability, a cleric can't move fast from a dungeon to another to find a group and was not able to solo, you can agree or not, but I guess that were true concerns, not just a request for new powers.

I am happy that some people in Verant understood that message better than the selfish people who only want new spell to grind new powers and don't care about what others feel.

I am a warrior but partner frequently with a Druid friend so I have been reading here to get some ideas to help her out.

If VI does the same with the priest balancing that they did with the melee, then the Druids should be very happy becuase they will reap the benifits like the other melee classes (monks,pallys,sk) reaped the benifits of melee balancing. Thats assuming they follow the same pattern and screw the Clerics (priest benchmark class) like they did the Warrior (melee benchmark class). Whoever said the Warrior was balanced must be taking some good drugs!!

I really hope things work out for Druids. They are my favorite class to partner with!!

I wouldn't go so far as to say clerics as a whole are the enemy, but the VAST majority of trolls here and druid haters in general are clerics, which makes it hard to keep a level head when dealing with them as a community. Many of them seem to want it two ways ...

Oh the irony.

The druid community here at this board (not going to generalize to all druids) seems to want to:

1. Maintain their easier/faster road to 60 than clerics

2. Maintain their vastly superior personal utility to clerics

while

3. Equalizing their desirability for groups and raids

"It doesn't matter that it was much easier for me to get to 60, I'm here now and I want my piece of the pie"

"What do you mean my ports are powerful? That dwarf can port to North Kaladim! Self-only, so he doesn't even have to be bothered with tells for porting!"

"Ports, sow, invis, lev, EB, et al are not really a consideration in balance, because they do not get me on a raid or in groups, they are just toys"

"All our key abilities are being given away to other classes! What? BS, they are not just toys, who said that?"

"We are not whining. We are not. Stop saying that. Everyone says that, but it's not true."

"Look at other class boards, they go ballistic every time we cause an uproar and then go poke them with a stick in their threads; what's up with that?"

That about covers it.

Why is it still being allowed to post here? I see Aidon partially edited his or her thread, but still no ban. Please IP ban the account. Thanks.

1. Maintain their easier/faster road to 60 than clerics


Can we stop this nonsense? Look around your guild. Ask for the /played days for your clerics. Clerics level at least as fast as druids, and they will level faster now will the large bias to group xp.


I've seen guild clerics go from level one to 60 in less than two months, where I have 130+ days on a level 58 druid.

Let's try to keep the discussion honest, shall we?

I think there is some truth to that last statement.

I believe that druids can hit 50 much faster than Clerics can. On the other hand, Clerics can, and usually do, hit 60 quicker than druids can. 1-50 is really only the first half (if not less) of a level 60's game play. It took me 6 months to hit 50, but, another 18 to hit 60.

I honestly don't care anymore.

What clerics are replying is just : "You are going to give up some of your lock on damage, accept that."


Why are those clerics referring to wizards, or rogues, or monks? What does that have to do with regard to healing?

Surely they don't mean that druids have a "lock on damage," do they? ROFL!

Any cleric that seriously (seriously, mind you) wants to draw a comparison between the cleric lock on healing with CH and the druid ability to nuke has some brain chemistry issues....

>What clerics are replying is just : "You are going to give up
>some of your lock on damage, accept that."
>
>Surely they don't mean that druids have a "lock on damage," >do they? ROFL!

My sentence was not aimed at druids, but at every class who jumped in the "nerf the cleric hammer" train that came after the patch.

We are like in a vicious circle, if VI give some "serious" dmg output to clerics then people yell that we are overpowered and that generate a torrent of whines among others classes (not pointing only at druids, Pallies had a major part in the flow), because we are the primary healer and we bring enough in situation XXX and yadayadayada...

If we stay as we are and they give more healing power to other priests, then clerics will be unhappy for others reasons that you can read in my long previous post in this thread.

So what I mean is that VI have to start from a side, they were about to start by druid probably (or maybe they never changed the plans, we don't really know in fact)... But I guess from general reactions they understood that clerics situation in this case was more precarious than druid one, so they choose to bring the clerics changes first in game. (we can argument on that, I'm sure we have different point of views, but I can just speculate from what VI actually did)

Look at the result : clerics are generally happy with the new melee things even if it still need some tweaking, and I look at the future new druid heal with a lot more serenity, because now we know we have a future that is not just log for raid, click CH in rotation, delog, log twink.

Go look at the posts on cleric board the day the first hammer went out, some posts were saying : "np now you can give the new heals to druids, and even more".

What I try to say, is threat the other like you would like to be threated (that's in the bible no?), break the vicious circle, stop posting : "OMG clerics got a hammer, Verant sucks, blablabla we need zone wide DT to ballance blablabla", instead of "cool, Verant is really listening to the players, clerics they got the hammer, now they can bring our changes too in game".

And maybe it time to stop putting damage table comparisons, flowcharts, and speculation of dps on a 30 hour fight under the rain with a wind of 22.5mph, WE DON'T CARE!

People just want to log some hours per day in EQ and have fun !

And if for most clerics havin fun is finding a group and killing some mobs, if THAT become too hard and you have no other option, that mean that people won't log the cleric but will play another class or another game.

But I guess from general reactions they understood that clerics situation in this case was more precarious than druid one



/boggle

STOP that's not the point of my post. ;)

>(we can argument on that, I'm sure we have different point
>of views, but I can just speculate from what VI actually did)

Actually I think who the benchmark is depends on the topic and that is the problem... there should be a clear measure regardless of topic and thier isnt.

Healing - definately cleric... they are the measuring stick and should be.

Overall - arguably shaman... they can do just about every meaningful thing a druid can plus some and their only shortcoming vs clerics is really healing and even that isnt as great considering the other things they bring to the table.

So... in terms of healing, clerics are way ahead and probably need to be reeled in a bit closer to shaman and druids but in the big picture clerics are pretty far behind in overall value outside of healing and deserve to reel in shaman and druids.

I guess it depends on your perspective and what issue we are discussing but clerics are definately NOT the overall measuring stick of priest balance.. just when it comes to healing and however you want to slice it, healing in but one edge to the issue, albiet probably the main one considering we are "priests".

I am not sure I understand your point about overall balance, Sorrun. Lets put it this way. You get to have a guild of 50. That guild has 15 preists in it, of your choice. How many are Clerics? How many are Shaman? How many are Druids?

If that is not a measure of overall balance of a class, I am not sure what is. If you answer that question honestly, you know Clerics are making up at least 10 of those 15 slots, maybe more.

You are not entirely wrong in what you are saying, I just think you are failing to give the ability to heal its propper weight in considering overall balance.

"You are going to give up some of your lock on damage, accept that."

If we share ALL of DD's are you prepared to share ALL of your heals with us?

As a druid I am all for it...

Drafin

I'm going off on a tangent because I just thought of something that made me laugh in retrospect.

I was thinking about the comment about druids level to 60 faster than clerics and in considering all the flaws of that perceived empirical statement, I recalled one of my personal roles in a raid. This was a very important job and I approached it with enthusiasm and gave 100% towards being successful in accomplishing my mission. The cleric who I was assigned to heal never died once. Who says druids don't have a role in raids? This is funny to me now, but it is also revealing.

I posted this one because I thought others may also get a chuckle out of recalling similar assignments they may have enjoyed. For those who would follow with the beating of their chest and saying that they can do this or do that and it may be that I don't know how to play a druid to it's potential, save it for your memoirs. I have been druid since the days of discovery, exploration and high risks when trying something for the time was really trying it for the first time. I was dying in Lower Guk when there was often noone else in the zone, but I got my Manastone. I was likely the first on an older server to get a tour of Mistmoore Castle (we don't have to consider that I was charmed at the time). Bah. I am showing credentials just because it is annoying to get those "I am a better druid than you" replies.

Anyway, I think it is funny that I actually had the job of being the cleric's personal healer. Who knows, short of some major change, I may be fortunate enough to get the job of carrying extra bags for the puller monk once PoP is out.

I play both a Druid and a Cleric, as well as making a shaman but its not high enough to count right now, and therefore read on both sides of the debate here this is what I find, Clerics are the masters of groups at this time, without them there is not a raid and sometimes a group at all, while this is not supposed to be the case they are trying to resolve it by adding new heals to the druids, I have a 54 druid myself and I would love for this to happen but then again, if druids get a good enough heal that clerics are no longer "necessary" for a group, then what am I supposed to do. Well this is how my druid got started in the first place, if my cleric cannot find a group I have to log, there is NO chance to solo, now I have a hammer and still cannot solo decent exp mobs while I have not parsed any files nor do I care to I bring this from eqclerics from another person:
"I tried soloing with no bot in the grey. but after having to zone a few times to ssra, losing to LIGHT BLUE skeles, while a druid quaded dark blue golems in front of ssra, depressed me, so i loaded my shm and went to ME"

from what i always read Clerics and necros were supposed to be king on killing undead mobs yet again I present this from earlier on this topic as well as info from eq casters realm:

WD does 3.7HP of damage per mana point.
Wildfire does 3.2
Moonfire does 3.6

exile undead 725 dd for 250 mana or 2.9 ratio and that is the best undead spell cleric has besides the one you cast and you get no exp no body.

so now we have established that Cleric cannot melee a light blue and where cleric is supposed to be the best (on undead) the damage to mana ratio is worse than druid on ANY mob, combine melee till down on life, then root and shoot till dead and you might kill one mob for 3 or so bubbs of mana perhaps more, again I dont even try to solo, if I wanted to do that would play my druid instead.

From my druids perspective I need a better heal, there are sometimes I would like to be able to get in a group and get my own ES armor not just have to buy it or get my cleric to get it, as of this time the only real time I can get a group is if they have a healer but need a snarer regen DS person, if a group wants a healer they will settle for a shaman or even do without rather than go with a 54 druid for a healer I have even had some groups ask if I would just stay until a real healer was LFG, so yes I agree we need a better heal but again if we get a heal that makes us better for groups, then add in the fact we have regen, DS, snare, ports, invis, and dd where does that leave the cleric, all that the cleric has is complete heal and a 96% rez that is individual to them, even with that paladin have a 90% rez, that is why I believe Clerics were done first, I mean if all of the sudden both shaman and druids got semi CH spells and made clerics go out the window except for rez, which is the only thing other than complete heal that only clerics could do.

I dont know what will end up happening from all this discussion, most likely only wasting braincells and space on some server but in my OPINION a hammer that is better than most dropped weapons in game that you can get for 6pp was the wrong way to go, I would rather have seen a better spell ratio, even if it is only against the undead, 2.9 ratio to undead and 2.84 ratio against living really stinks, the new heal spells that were added for clerics only one will I use in an everyday situation the rest can only really be used in specific encounters on major raids, they do nothing to help me solo better on my cleric when I do lose being absolutely necessary for a group, and that is what most clerics of fearful of, so far nothing has been added to help us solo a mob that is dark blue to us without about 8 or so minute down time (depending on FT items, mana regen aa points, clarity) and a high probability of dieing (no snares, no slows, no sow, no invis, no EB to even hunt in the grey were the only blue soloable undead are, all the decent ratio if you call 2.9 ratio decent spells are dd and therefore will prob break roots alot, then add in the knowledge that we were told we gave all of this up to be the premier healer in the game, and now they take some of our thunder on that area and give it to the classes that do have all these items).

I tried not to be biased in my post here, but I have spent alot of time developing my cleric and not half as much on my druid so I cant help but be a little bit



Darcolith
Golas

I'm not sure why clerics are `obviously` the benchmark.

The last research we have indicates that 13% of the playerbase consider their druid to be their `main`. Clerics are the next most numerous WIS caster at just over half this figure.

To me, druids are `obviously` the default or benchmark WIS caster. The servers are absolutely overflowing with druids.

Oh yeah, I'm a cleric. Put me on ignore if you think that invalidates my opinions.

Main Entry: benchˇmark

2 a : a point of reference from which measurements may be made
b : something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged

"Oh yeah, I'm a cleric. Put me on ignore if you think that invalidates my opinions."

Why does being a cleric invalidate your opinion?

Seems clerics think we have something against them...problem is its the clerics who were (are) trolling and flaming are going to be moderated.

Not the people who have opinions and discuss it like an adult like your doing.

Tils

I think that some of the druids here do have a real problem with visiting clerics posting opinions in any fashion at all.

I also think the clerical community hasn't distinguished itself with some of the posts we've made here, but then, a quick glance at the cleric boards will show you trolls who I strongly suspect of being druids acting fairly antisocially. The main difference is that this board has posts with titles like `Clerics - Step into my office` (and the contents of that post might have been reasonable but the choice of title was a clear case of direct cleric-bashing, from a moderator at that).

The dictionary definition of benchmark doesn't seem to be relevant to the point that I was making.

I think that some of the druids here do have a real problem with visiting clerics posting opinions in any fashion at all.

Yes I agree but its a small amount and you will get this on every board you go to in reverse. Like if I go to a cleric board I will get flamed even helping someone with some advice by a few people. Generally though I dont find a problem.

The main difference is that this board has posts with titles like `Clerics - Step into my office` (and the contents of that post might have been reasonable but the choice of title was a clear case of direct cleric-bashing, from a moderator at that).

Where i understand your point. Im unsure how long you have been reading these boards as over the last maybe month or so we have had so many "cleric trolls" come to these boards the moderator maybe incorrectly putting a heading so generalised felt it was needed to try to stop the cleric trolls.

Moderation is not an easy task and sometimes it can be taken a little to far. This is not to say that they have or havent on these boards however there is a fine line between getting it right and upsetting the comminity and other classess which come here to provide welcomed input on these boards.

By reading your reply your feel "threatened" on these boards to a certain degree and unless theres a speicific reason (if youve been flaming on other threads which I dont know) then you need not worry. I would be upset if this board was moderated to a degree that only druids could come here and really if that ever happened which I really expect it not to these boards would probably close down.

Either way..input is good. Flaming is not.

Tils

The last research we have indicates that 13% of the playerbase consider their druid to be their `main`.

Please show proof of this research. Also, does your research show level range? If we looked at below 50 only, this could be very correct, but in the level 60 game, the players are no where near that number.

Tils,
You mention that "input is good," but I just do not see that, generally, when that input comes from a Cleric. Let me explain what I mean. Look at what the message is from almost every Cleric that posts here. Almost every thread can be broken down into one of three classes: 1. "If druids want X, they need to give up Y" 2. "Clerics can't solo and healing is the only thing a Cleric brings to a group" 3. "I don't understand why Druids are complaining, they can do A,B,C,D, .... Clerics only get to heal."

What are the purposes behind these archtype posts? Clearly, it is Clerics trying to convince people that Druids should not get sufficient healing increases such that they would be an acceptable replacement for a Cleric in a group. It is the very rare Cleric that comes in here to discuss how Druid shortfallings can best be remedied. They are only here to convince people that whatever it is that Druids should get, it should not be substantial healing upgrades. Clerics that come in here to discuss how the Druid gimp heal on test can be modified to make it a more appropriate spell for Druid needs, or who want to discuss other aspects of Druids and what can or should be done for us in a constructive manner should be welcomed with open arms, as we would any other member to the board. That is good input, and I don't just mean by constructive, only things which lead to raw power upgrades for Druids. I just mean input provided with the intent to help Druids and help the game.

Are you, or any Druid for that matter, ever going to be convinced that Clerics need to be not merely desireable, but necessary for groups hitting the most rewarding xp spots in the game? Of course not, but that is what post of the three archtypes above are designed to convince. It is not at all helpful input to Druids issues to hear Clerics coming in here and telling us that they have to maintain their healing monopoly in tha game.

Even the poster you complimented is doing exactly that. Take this excerpt from his post - "so now we have established that Cleric cannot melee a light blue..." We all know now that is complete crap. What is the point o fsaying something like that? It has one purpose - to try and convince you that soloing is not an option for Clerics and therefor Clerics MUST group and therefor Druids can never be as desirable enough for groups in such a way that they might replace a Cleric in any given group. Why is that "good input?" It isn't. It is the same old tired line Clerics having been feeding the EQ world forever and used NOT to justify why Clerics should be better, but for why Druids should not be made better healers. There is nothing in the least bit constructive or helpful about any line of arguement with that purpose. IMO, you are making a mistake even to acknoledge that the troll posted something.

Like I said, it is not hard to spot a Cleric out to convince you (s)he must remain essential to all healing roles. Just look at where the underlying reasoning to any of these trolls directs you, and if you end up at "Clerics must keep their healing monopoly," then don't feed the troll. Ignore it and it might crawl back to EQClerics.

Even the poster you complimented is doing exactly that. Take this excerpt from his post - "so now we have established that Cleric cannot melee a light blue..."

My posts were directed to ShadowfrostXev not the other one.


Like I said, it is not hard to spot a Cleric out to convince you (s)he must remain essential to all healing roles

I also didnt say they should be. Point being is I have my own opinions and yes I feel that clerics do have a monopoly on essential healing roles and something does need to be fixed. But my basis on my previous posts were to avoid losing people who felt threatened by druids who only want to flame clerics and nothing else.

What I dislike seeing in these boards is clerics AND druids (yes druids too) or other classess arguing over what each class should or shouldnt get and yes a lot of posts recently are plain arguments not conversations and discussions.

What people need to realise is not everyone has the same viewpoint and opinions but I guess realising that comes with past experiences.


Tils

I think someone sould make a board just for clerics, druids, and wizards to fight amoungst themselves.


Fairweather Pure

Aaeamdar, part of my point is that the number of clerics, druids or shaman is largly irrelivent not to mention virtually impossible to prove.

Balance isnt about making sure there are equal numbers of all priests in the game... it is about making sure they share a relatively equal power in the game. Healing is only one facet of this power base (but I agree.. probably the main one)... I think clerics sadly lack in every other facet and druids/shaman pretty much excel at everything BUT healing. Part of the problem is that Verant has designed so much of the game around a large healing power (CH) so that is why I advocate removing it and revamping the healing spells so as to keep clerics head and shoulders above shaman and druids, but also revamp the other spell lines so that clerics can do more then just heal effectivly.

Overall, shaman I feel are a better benchmark although clerics SHOULD be that benchmark. I suspect that is why we are seeing an influx of cleric changes similar to what happened with warriors at the outset of the melee balance.

I've just searched hard for the link to that thesis, but couldn't find it. Surely many druids will be aware of it, though, and hopefully someone who still has it can post a link ?

Sure, it's something like two years old, but it's the last piece of research into the subject which is worth calling `research`.

I'll also point to my own experience. I know a lot more 60 druids than 60 clerics (and more of the clerics are bots than druids, although both classes are heavily botted).

Now, I agree that warrior can be considered the `basic` melee because, according to the same research, warrior is the most popular class for a melee character.

But by this logic, the benchmark WIS caster is druid.

Because there's always someone who gets the wrong end of the stick, I should highlight that I do understand why clerics should be the `benchmark` from the old AD&D class/subclass viewpoint. I just don't understand why that viewpoint should apply to EQ.

i dunno about other servers but on rodcet there are usually as many 60 druids on as 60 dwarf clerics. so naturally, there are a ton more clerics.

in the last 2 years, alot of druids have been retired and/or traded in for a twink. probably more than any other class, two year old data is really outdated.

Also, i cant speak for other servers/guilds about this either, but in my guild there are 3 primary druids and 3 bot druids (all 60) and 14 primary clerics and 2 bot clerics (all 60). Not even close in numbers.

Here's something really simply to understand.

Giving Druids and Shaman CH will eliminate Clerics completely.

If Druids can give me an intelligent reason why this wouldn't happen, I'll understand the Druid's desire for CH. If you're only reason is "Cleric's can rez"... I'll understand Druids don't really care for balance at all.

My Guild has 10 L60 Cleric mains and 4 60 Cleric bots. We have 3 L60 Druid Mains, and 3 L60 Druid bots. We have a total of 6 Druid bots, 3 of whom used to be mains.

Sorrun,
I think you have simply bought into the Cleric propoganda machine, if you think that Clerics are really so one dimensional.

Me in a group: 2-3 Heals (including clicky regen), 1-2 root, 0-1 stun, Snare, 1-3 damage (Nuke, Dot, DS), Evac. I also have buffs I swap in when needed and, through ports, I can quickly gather my group and get them where we want to be.

Of those abilities, Clerics share most of them. In the Case of Heals, Stuns and Buffs, Clerics are better (with Heals and Stuns being much much better). In the case of Damage and Root, Druids are better. Obviously, Clerics completely lack the ability to evac/port and snare. They do, however, bring their own unique abilities to the table, the most important of which is Res.

The fact is, a well played Cleric can fill most of the roles a well played Druid brings to a group, including healing, buffing, damage, and crowd control. They are certainly not as good as we are in several areas, but likewise, we are not as good as them in several areas. They are not one dimensional healers like they like to pretend to be on these threads.

Edit: Tettsuo, Here is something really simple for you to understand. You are wrong. If that is your experience, then you hang out with poorly played Clerics.

1. Clerics can rez. If you think this has no effect, go play another class for six months and never accept one.

2. Clerics now have sustainable DPS, mana free.

3. Clerics generally have higher AC, allowing them to live through overheal/ early heal situations.

4. Clerics have DA/DB, again allowing them to survie marginal situations and yes, REZ the party back.


All that said, keep you damned CH. I have no urge to see my class cursed with that spell.

It really makes no difference which class is selected as the benchmark. If it is Druids, as Shadow suggests, then fine, either all priests need to be brought down to our level or we need to be seriously buffed up to where VI wants the "priest benchmark" and Clerics and Shaman adjust to be in balance with us from there. If it is Clerics or Shamen, then fine, we need to be brought up to their level once VI has got that benchmark class to where it wants it. The label of "benchmark" is only a useful tool in determining how to best proceed with balancing. It has no substantive effect on the ultimate outcome of the balancing.

Rez for clerics is precisely the same as the ability to port for druids:- by itself it isn't a ticket to a group, and fairly often it feels like you spend more time doing it than actually gaining xp.

Druids can rez, go get a rez clickie item from a white dragon. Unreasonable ? It's roughly equivalent to saying that a faithstone gives a cleric the ability to port:- hard to obtain and severely gimped compared to the real thing.

Clerics have sustainable mana-free DPS. However, the mana-free DPS is what comes from the summoned hammer, which isn't a big deal. The posts about clerics achieving 30-40 DPS are from people who are using Mark of Retribution and Unswerving Hammer of Faith to do the majority of their damage, and guess what ? They are spells !

Cleric mana-free DPS is still below epic druid mana-free DPS, and cleric mana-using DPS is still way below druid mana-using DPS.

Clerics do have higher AC, this is a valid point and a benefit of the cleric class.

When it comes to marginal situations, I'd trade evac for DA/DB any day. Then you don't need to rez the party back.

Evac rarely saves you from having to res someone, it usually just cuts down on the number of resses needed. You must also rember that it will be a much riskier proposition having your main healer also being your main evacer since main healers in a bad situation tend to be one of the ones with aggro.

Aaeamdar... hush. You said nothing. At least Falamil gave a few reasons that could be seen as helpful, you basically attempted to insult the Clerics I group with to make your case. Poor form.

Falamil, the reasons you have are not 4, but 2 reasons. Heal and Rez. You forgot the buffs. :) Anyway, my point is without CH Clerics are nothing serious. Druid and Shaman buffs are sufficient for 99% of the game exp'ing. Both classes provide higher DPS, and both classes have superior utilities. Without CH, Clerics are the lowest class on the EQ totem pole.

I think Druids should get an unlimited 60% heal. And NR should be a group spell for 400 mana. That would be sufficient for Druid healing in my eyes.

Clerics are going to receive additional changes so that they have some abilities that makes them more sought after for grouping. The final ability choices will be made after this first set of changes is evaluated and tested more extensively. It's very important that clerics have an ability that makes other players say "I really want to invite a cleric because they can do X, and that will be really helpful."

Rich Waters

I am not attempting to insult the Clerics you group with. I did suggest that it might simply be you are not observing what they are doing. I have no idea what the Clerics you gorup with are like - but somehow you profess to believe Clerics are essentially one dimesional healers. That is clearly wrong, unless that is the role your Cleric friends are choosing. They have as wide a selction of spells that Druids do, in many cases directly overlapping what we do. Again, sometimes doing it better than us, and sometimes doing it worse.

Since I do not group with you, I have no idea whether the Clerics you play with choose to be so one dimensional that they have left you with that opinion or if you are simply (out of negligence or ill motive) choosing to ignore the wide array of abilities they (and all casters) possess for the purpose of making your point. I am always suspicious of people's motives who state things that are so obviously incorrect. My comment about the Clerics you group with was simply to give you the benefit of the doubt.

For what it is worth, we do come down on healing at almost the same place, at least before the 9/4 patch. 60% uncapped heal and some form of group heal. ER has also had the effect of making meaningless CB and NT. My own solution would be to cut by 1/3-1/2 the casting time on both of those spells.

I would submit that those who think evac = res have never used evac.

You evac when the party is about to wipe. Odds are this is when the MT or the CC person OR THE CLERIC is already dead.


60% heal and a group heal? Make that a group HoT to give us some efficiency healing AE groups. Then it's a deal.

AND don't gimp the 60% heal by saying UP TO 60% health. The debil is in the details. =)

Evac definitely is not comparable to Res., and I do not mean that in the colloquial. I think they get compared so often because Res is the big thing that Clerics have that Druids do not and Evac is the big thing Druids have that Clerics do not. They both server very different purposes, and their purposes are highly complementary. No Cleric will ever save their group by ressing them. No Druid will ever allow their fallen groupmates to return to combat effectiveness as quickly as a Cleric with Res. They may share some overlapping goals, if stated broadly in terms of "reducing downtime," but the functions are not themselves overlapping. They are, in fact, quite complemetary, in that the existance of one tool in a group makes having the other tool also in the group much stronger.

Never even suggested that evac was comparable to rez.

I think a HoT is too much. Making NR a group spell, will already recover a vast amount of HP's during an AE encounter, and it'll last far longer than an HoT type spell. Not to mention, you can ramp down the mana cost because of the amount of time the heal needs to be effective.

As I said, an unlimited 60% heal. Casting time and mana cost can be the same as CH cause you have the added regen of NR and RoTG (these do stack no?). As I said many times before, if Druids want a HoT, it should be accompanied by a negative side-effect.

I meant AE encounters, not AE groups. My bad.

Semantics I suppose, Tett. I tend to think a HoT fits a druid better than a blast heal.


Either will work, provided the mana cost isn't completely prohibitive.

HoTs are improved by SCR/M. Instant heals are improved by HA, HG and IH3. I wouild like a group heal of some sort, but definitely prefer it and all my other heals, come in the form of instant heals.

You also need to consider the impact on other classes of the change you propose.

Heals over time, and group heals, are the territory of two classes at the moment:- cleric and paladin. If the druid 3k CH goes in, you'll reach a situation where one druid + one paladin can do everything one cleric can do in terms of XP group healing (and a whole load more besides).

Paladins are already suffering as a result of WIS caster balancing because VI have (rather unwisely) chosen to hand out melee capacity to clerics. Remember that pallies were never a top end class in terms of group/raid desirability anyway - they're in roughly the same position as druids pre-CH are in that sense - and also remember that their balancing has already been done as part of melee balance. They won't get anything else.

For goodness' sake let the poor pallies keep the few little semi-unique abilities they have left, and ask to get abilities that have been granted to some other class !

The reason I bring up a group heal is that it's usually the job of a druid to keep secondary groups alive under AE.


I just want to see the tools available to do the job well. I don't want to see pallies get smacked.

Falamil,
You are falling for the Cleric troll's shift in tactics. You know as well as I do that improved Druid healing does nothing bad to Paladins (It does nothing bad to Clerics either, but they are generally to greedy or too stupid to figure that out). This Cleric troll is like all the others - she is here to convince you why you should be happy not getting improvements. She, unlike so many other Cleric trolls, has finally figured out that telling us that Clerics will lose their stranglehold on highend groups is not going to convince us, so she has shifted gears and is now trying to convince us not to ask for heals for the sake of the poor Paladins. Please, please, please, do not validate the crap spewed by these Cleric trolls by responding to it. Just ignore it like it was never posted. If we all do this, all these Cleric trolls will eventually go back to the comfort and nerf-calling hate of EQClerics.

I've stated elsewhere and I'll say it again here. All these discussions about what each class can and can't do are bascially flawed because there are to many tangibles introduced in them.

When, for instance, I mention not being able to solo outside of undead critters, I'm often told "Just go get <insert item name>." Often the item name is way beyond my capacity to get.

Class balance should be seperate from Item balance. Ideally, Clerics/Shamans/Druids should be balanced so that just with store bought armor and weapons, they can all three offer an equal amount of value. Once someone says "You can get this item to do this", then it's no longer class balance, but item balance. There's what? 10,000 items in the game? That's 10,016 arguements you can make about any one subject. And too often I see these discussions break down into that.

Item balance is something that needs to be addressed, but as a seperate issue. I don't think you can ever achieve item balance without class balance first. Just my own personall opinion, but I think Item inbalance has hurt the game more than Class balance.

Blanace does not mean equal in everything either. It's a fine line of damage, enhancement, and healing in our cases.

So whenever you start to say "well your class can do this", ask yourself is it the class than can do it, or an item that class can get.

Dar,


I'm aware of the danger. I'm not falling for it.


Druids need healing upgrades, period. Myself, I think group heals and HoTs fall squarely to druids, considering the 'regenerative' nature of druids and the 'wolfpack' ideal.

I know you don't agree with this. The cleric poster obviously thinks that giving grou heals to druids steps on paladins.

I said this before in another thread. EQ is a game designed around one concept: DPS. You do damage. If you do more damage than the opponent has health, and before your own health runs out, you win. It's that simple. Do damage, heal damage dealer so they can do more damage. There is very little room in this model for unique abilities.

There is no way to upgrade a class without 'stepping' on someone. Know what? That's OK. There aren't enough clerics for every raiding group, and there aren't even close to enough paladins to cover AE damage. So yes, someone else needs these spells.

I propose druids get em, in the form of HoTs.

Does anyone other than Aaea~ feel that my post constitutes trolling ? Because I can just go away and leave you to your cosy druid-only discussion if you like.

Fal,
I completely agree with you on the group heal thing, I just think we are better off having it in the form of an instant group heal, rather than a HoT. People already have stacking issues and total buff issues that adding yet another buff counter is a problem. Add on top of that the stacking issues (does this new group HoT stack with CE/EE/Torpor or not? If so, does it stack with NR (or is this suggestion a NR replacement?). VI has a long history of screwing up stacking issues. When there really is not need to do so, I don't see why we should encourage them to add more.

The cleric poster obviously thinks that giving grou heals to druids steps on paladins.

Now this, I don't agree with. The Cleric poster obviously thinks she will have a better chance of convincing Druids that we don't need better healing if she can make a case that we are stepping on Paladin toes. Her end motive is the same - keep Druids down, maintain Cleric healing monopoly.

Does anyone other than Aaea~ feel that my post constitutes trolling ? Because I can just go away and leave you to your cosy druid-only discussion if you like.

If the administrators believe you are trolling, they will let you know it.

For goodness' sake let the poor pallies keep the few little semi-unique abilities they have left, and ask to get abilities that have been granted to some other class !

Paladins can tank as well as a non-defensive warrior, deal as much or more damage than a warrior, control aggro 1000 times better than a warrior, and out heal a primary healing class in raid situations, and you want us to feel sorry for them why?

How can you not think that a Druid group HoT or a Druid group heal would not affect Paladin's healing wave? It's the same thing, and Druids will, on average, have more mana to do it with. Be at least somewhat reasonable.

For all accounts and purposes, a group NR would be just as effective as any insta-group heal vs AoE mobs. Constant regen is one of those silent lifesavers people rarely notice. NR is the largest regen anyone can have. Add RoTG to that, plus Bard AoE mana/hp/sta regen songs. That's massive regen, for probably less mana that last longer, and is more efficent in the long run... not to mention you could probably MGB the entire raid party with it, and really be effective.

You don't have to step on toes to get what you want.

How can you not think that a Druid group HoT or a Druid group heal would not affect Paladin's healing wave? It's the same thing, and Druids will, on average, have more mana to do it with. Be at least somewhat reasonable.

And paladins should heal better than druids why? Do you hear SK's saying they should have better dots than shaman? Do you hear rangers asking for better nukes than mages? So why should paladins heal better than druids?

How can you not think that a Druid group HoT or a Druid group heal would not affect Paladin's healing wave? It's the same thing, and Druids will, on average, have more mana to do it with. Be at least somewhat reasonable.

Probably because I think most Paladins (very much unlike Clerics), and their class board will support this, are not of the opinion that when other classes are improved, they are hurt. That attitude is almost exclusively held by Clerics (although you seem to hold it, and are not a Cleric, but where entire communities are concerned, it is almost exclusively a Cleric trait). Almost every reasonable player I know would agree that just because Class X and Class Y can both do something, does not necessarily mean on e of those classes is irrellevant. It just means there is some redundency built into the game. Clerics already have group heals and have a lot more mana than Paladins. That does not stop Paladins from using their group heals just because they are grouped with a Cleric. Warriors can swing a sword, but that does not seem to interfer with a Paladin's ability to do the same thing. Not everyone has the attitude that they must be the be all and end all of a particular ability.

" Not everyone has the attitude that they must be the be all and end all of a particular ability. "

Nope but Verant says they are basing it on Clerics, just as melee changes were based on Warriors. I'm sure Warriors didnt want to catch all the flac they did through the changes. Kind of thinkin some Clerics feel the same way. Not all mind you seeing there have been several that believe we SHOULDN'T get anything, let alone another heal.

Paladins can tank as well as a non-defensive warrior, deal as much or more damage than a warrior, control aggro 1000 times better than a warrior, and out heal a primary healing class in raid situations, and you want us to feel sorry for them why?

OK, let's deal with these one by one.

Paladins cannot tank as well as a non-defensive warrior, because they lack the hp of the non-defensive warrior. That means that it is more efficient to heal a warrior than a paladin, which surely makes the warrior a better tank.

I don't deny that with druid as a main healer using a 3k-capped CH, a paladin would be a better tank than a warrior. In my mind that's a good thing because paladins are definitely suffering at the moment.

Paladins can deal as much or more damage than an equivalent warrior in one (1) situation, which is when they are fighting undead mobs and they have spent enough AA to purchase Slay Undead. (This is roughly equivalent to saying that druids can outdamage warriors in melee with a Dire Charmed pet - true, but very very situational). Aside from that they are at significantly less than warrior damage output.

Aggro control, that's quite true. Paladins do it better.

In AE mob situations, a paladin has useful heals which a druid does not. However, that doesn't counterbalance the fact that the druid has a far larger mana pool, specialization, possibly AA and Flowing Thought items for spellcasting rather than the hp/ac equipment and AA mix that the pally will have, and the chance to med during fights.

Sure, there are also occasions during a standard (non-AE) xp group when a group heal is highly useful. This gives you a reason to get the paladin into your group.

I'm going to come back and deal with Mr You're-A-Trolling-Cleric when a moderator's had a chance to read this. In the meantime I'll just treat his point of view with the same contempt he shows for mine.

"Paladins can deal as much or more damage than an equivalent warrior in one (1) situation, which is when they are fighting undead mobs and they have spent enough AA to purchase Slay Undead. (This is roughly equivalent to saying that druids can outdamage warriors in melee with a Dire Charmed pet - true, but very very situational). Aside from that they are at significantly less than warrior damage output."

according to all the logs and parses from the ranger boards, 2 hand weapons will almost always outdamage dual wielding... a paladin can use a 2h'er while a warrior has to dual wield for aggro, so it could be possible for a pally to outdamage a warrior without slay3.

Paladins cannot tank as well as a non-defensive warrior, because they lack the hp of the non-defensive warrior. That means that it is more efficient to heal a warrior than a paladin, which surely makes the warrior a better tank.

Tanking is about taking the hit. Paladins take a hit just as well as a warrior. Hit points only matter if CH is being used, and CH is so insanely efficient that if a 6k tank is down by one bubble of health a CH is more efficient than any druid heal. Also, the hp gap peaks with maximum stamina. After that it remains the same and as more and more hp items are acquired, the percentage of the gap grows smaller.

Paladins can deal as much or more damage than an equivalent warrior in one (1) situation, which is when they are fighting undead mobs and they have spent enough AA to purchase Slay Undead.

No, paladins can do it for a number of reasons and in all situations. One is superior two handed weapons. Two is the fact that two handed weapons now do much more damage than dual wielding, but warriors are forced to rely on one handed weapons because taunt is broken. Three is because warriors are generally tanking on raids and their dps suffers due to the defensive capabilities of the mob. Throw in undead and paladin damage is far superior to warrior damage.

In AE mob situations, a paladin has useful heals which a druid does not. However, that doesn't counterbalance the fact that the druid has a far larger mana pool, specialization, possibly AA and Flowing Thought items for spellcasting rather than the hp/ac equipment and AA mix that the pally will have, and the chance to med during fights.

Yes, druids have those advantages, but it is hard to make up for the raw efficiency of paladin heals. The simple fact that there is a discussion on who has better heals, a hybrid or priest is an indication that something isn't right.

I don't think group NR would help much in an AE situation, unless you doubled the regen.

Let's say you are taking AE. The AE is hitting for 200 pts average (many are WAY higher than this). The mob is AE'ing once every 15 seconds (most seem to be closer to 12).

That's 300 damage every 15 seconds. NR heals 40pts per tick. Hrmm, NR is dealing with less than half the damage. Not good enough.


Now, double the regen of NR and give it half the duration and we have an effective group heal, stacking and buff slot issues aside.

NR heals for 30/tick. You get to 45 by stacking it with Regrowth.

Tanking is about taking the hit. Paladins take a hit just as well as a warrior. Hit points only matter if CH is being used, and CH is so insanely efficient that if a 6k tank is down by one bubble of health a CH is more efficient than any druid heal. Also, the hp gap peaks with maximum stamina. After that it remains the same and as more and more hp items are acquired, the percentage of the gap grows smaller.

Tanking is a function of: Taunt + Damage mitigation + Damage avoidance + Total HP. Paladins produce more taunt than a warrior but possess lower AC and HP at an equivalent level of equipment. Therefore, in any situation where a warrior could hold aggro, a warrior will be a `better` tank than a paladin.

No, paladins can do it for a number of reasons and in all situations. One is superior two handed weapons. Two is the fact that two handed weapons now do much more damage than dual wielding, but warriors are forced to rely on one handed weapons because taunt is broken. Three is because warriors are generally tanking on raids and their dps suffers due to the defensive capabilities of the mob. Throw in undead and paladin damage is far superior to warrior damage.

Apples and oranges. Either we're comparing a paladin in an xp group with a warrior in an xp group, or we're comparing a paladin on a raid with a warrior on a raid. If I was to post about comparing a druid in an XP group to a cleric on a raid here, I'd get eaten alive. ;)

Two handed weapons do more damage than dual wielding ? OK, let's stipulate that this is true. I'd invite you to show me a two-handed weapon which a paladin can use and a warrior cannot, which produces more damage output than an equivalent warrior-only two-hander.

But you have to choose the weapon carefully - if it drops off a raid mob, then the warrior is realistically going to have damage boosting AA which a paladin cannot match.

On the subject of undead, I've observed that this is very situational and I'll highlight that again. In those places where there are undead to fight with a reasonable XP yield, you generally can't find many spawns for all the necros and clerics anyway.

About the best you can say for Slay Undead is that more mobs are flagged up as undead than as animals. That doesn't make Slay Undead useful in a standard XP zone like Cazic Thule.

Yes, druids have those advantages, but it is hard to make up for the raw efficiency of paladin heals. The simple fact that there is a discussion on who has better heals, a hybrid or priest is an indication that something isn't right.

Stipulated, but we are talking about a balancing process. That means that we have to take into account our best understanding of how balancing will work, which at the moment gives druids a 3khp CH. In a standard XP zone situation the 3khp heal will beat anything except clerical CH hands down in terms of `raw efficiency` - and I do assure you that because of relatively low tank HP in an xp group situation, most cleric CH's will not exceed 3khp by all that much.

__________________________________________________ ____________________

Where this is going

In summary:- a proposed group heal or heal-over-time for druids is taking over the small sort-of-unique role that paladins have in a major way. Why not find another answer ?

I've already posted in several places that the answer is:-

1. Give Ethereal Light and Ethereal Remedy to druids at 60. If you have a 3k CH, you probably won't be using them all that much, but druids want it, so why not ? I do assure you that most thinking clerics won't care in the slightest.

2. Give Divine Light and Remedy to paladins. Clerics have walked into paladin territory with some melee, so paladins should be entitled to compensatory abilities derived from clerics.

3. Implement 3k druid CH.

4. Druid raid fix. My own favourite is some variation of the Chaotic Harmony idea because that would give druids a unique and powerful raid role which would not have an undue impact on XP groups and which would enable druids to stack effectively; only challenge is that the coding may be fairly complex.

5. Druid aggro reduction spell. Probably some variation of Jolt because it makes sense to me in roleplaying terms to give the parent class the abilities of their related hybrid where necessary.

1. Give Ethereal Light and Ethereal Remedy to druids at 60. If you have a 3k CH, you probably won't be using them all that much, but druids want it, so why not ? I do assure you that most thinking clerics won't care in the slightest.

I am actually somewhat in favour of the balance struck with Giving Ethereal Light to Clerics and not Druids, but I certainly won't complain about getting it. My gut reaction to it though was it was fine/appropriate for Clerics to have the largest direct heal outside of CH. Ethereal Remedy is essential for druids to continue to fulfill our back-up healing role.


2. Give Divine Light and Remedy to paladins. Clerics have walked into paladin territory with some melee, so paladins should be entitled to compensatory abilities derived from clerics.

Sounds reasonable. I really have no opinion on it. I am not sure Paladins are exactly a lacking class, atm, but either way, sounds good to me.

3. Implement 3k druid CH.

I really dislike the current gimp heal on test. It's essential problem is lack of growth. 3K is about right where I think Druids should be for a big heal today, but 3-6 months after PoP - who knows. Probably we are right back where we started. IMO, figure out what 3K represents to a typical Raid warrior and give Druids an uncapped % heal based on that number. Likewise, change CH (or make a new Cleric spell) to 100% heal, not 10K. Keep both of these heals out of the hands of Mobs - or cap both of these heals at something like 20k (a cap you can adjust later if game progression requires it).

4. Druid raid fix. My own favourite is some variation of the Chaotic Harmony idea because that would give druids a unique and powerful raid role which would not have an undue impact on XP groups and which would enable druids to stack effectively; only challenge is that the coding may be fairly complex.

I really hate the idea. This is what would happen if you implement it. Mobs would exist that would have to be tuned for this ability. That tuning would make those mobs essentially unbeatable without the ability - much like SLowable boss mobs are now, or like every boss mob is now with regard to CH. This means that Druids be ESSENTIAL, as opposed to merely desired, on certain raids. That is a bad thing and merely compounds the mistake VI made with CH and to a lesser extent Slow (more than one class can slow). If you do implement such an idea, other classes have to be given whatever the ability it is, even if in a slightly less effective form, so that encounters do not rely on the presence of Druids.

5. Druid aggro reduction spell. Probably some variation of Jolt because it makes sense to me in roleplaying terms to give the parent class the abilities of their related hybrid where necessary.

Logical, as Rangers have it, and again, I won't complain. That said, there are pleanty of spells Rangers have that Druids do not (as with other Hybrids and their parents). I am not sure agro control is really a big issue for most Druids, or maybe I guess I will put it another way. Druid's could up their DPS if they had something like Jolt, because agro, not casting time or mana constraints, are what generally restrict our abililty to nuke on Raids. That said, there is something to having a tougher job than someone else that brings a certain degree of satisfaction. I really can't decide what I think here. I guess I would lean against it though. I think agro control is one of the key skills in making this game non-trivial. I would not call for a nerf of anyone's abilities, but I am frankly always a little saddened when I see a new spell, item, or ability go into the game that makes getting, maintaining, or losing agro easier.

Therefore, in any situation where a warrior could hold aggro, a warrior will be a `better` tank than a paladin.

Haha, there is never a situation that a warrior can hold aggro better than a paladin. When a warrior is tanking, everyone has to watch their aggro in order not to take it. When a paladin is tanking, no one has to hold back. As a matter of fact, the hp difference can be made up for by the fact that a paladin doesn't have to take riposte damage while tanking a tough mob, but a warrior will be using very fast, high taunt weapons which means they will be taking maximum riposte damage.

Two handed weapons do more damage than dual wielding ? OK, let's stipulate that this is true. I'd invite you to show me a two-handed weapon which a paladin can use and a warrior cannot, which produces more damage output than an equivalent warrior-only two-hander.

Petrified Heartwood Flamberge (Tunare)
LORE ITEM MAGIC ITEM NO DROP
Damage: 50
Delay: 39
Ratio: 0.78 Godly
AC: +40 Str: +25 Sta: +25 Wis: +25 Int: +25 Magic Resist: +15 Fire Resist: +15 Cold Resist: +15 HP: +100 Mana: +100
Weight: 10.0
Weapon Skill: Two Hand Slash
Classes: Paladin Shadowknight
Races: All Races
Inventory Slot: Primary Melee

Comperable warrior weapons.

Gaudralek, Sword of the Sky (Lord Vyemm)
LORE ITEM MAGIC ITEM NO DROP
Damage: 43
Delay: 38
Ratio: 0.883 Godly
AC: +50 HP: +100
Weight: 9.0
Weapon Skill: Two Hand Slash
Classes: Warrior
Races: All Races
Inventory Slot: Primary Melee

Twisted Steel Bastard Sword (Eashen of the Sky)
LORE ITEM MAGIC ITEM NO DROP
Damage: 53
Delay: 45
Ratio: 0.849 Godly
AC: +25 Str: +10 Sta: +10 Magic Resist: +7 Fire Resist: +7 Cold Resist: +7 Poison Resist: +7 Disease Resist: +7
Weight: 0.0
Weapon Skill: Two Hand Slash
Classes: Warrior
Races: All Races
Inventory Slot: Primary Melee

When does a warrior catch back up?

The Sword of Ssraeshza (Emperor Ssraeshza)
LORE ITEM MAGIC ITEM NO DROP
Damage: 52
Delay: 42
Ratio: 0.807 Godly
AC: +50 Str: +10 Sta: +15 Dex: +10 Magic Resist: +10 Fire Resist: +10 Cold Resist: +10 Poison Resist: +10 Disease Resist: +10 HP: +100 Mana: +100
Weight: 2.0
Weapon Skill: Two Hand Slash
Classes: Warrior Shadowknight Paladin
Races: All Races
Inventory Slot: Primary Melee

But you have to choose the weapon carefully - if it drops off a raid mob, then the warrior is realistically going to have damage boosting AA which a paladin cannot match.

It is hard to compare the aa skills, but I can say that most warriors will spend in the neighborhood of 52 aa points before they even start looking at offensive skills.

Since all of this is simply hypothetical, I'll continue with my proposed group NR idea.

30 for NR
15 for RoTG
12 for Bard song

Since most constant AoE mobs are raid mobs, bards are usually present and playing AoE regen and resist songs, so a 57 point regen is very probable with a NR group buff. Now even with AoE damage, at lvl 60 some of it gets resisted (unless you're fighting a mob with an unresistable AoE). With that much regen a tick, you're saving all the heals insane amounts of mana, especially in a long battle. That much regen is more than enough. This doesn't even count those that already have additional regen from items.

Even in a hypothetical situation, it looks like yer being greedy. :)

Any bard in our guild that is not singing the AoE resist song or mana regen song (depending on circumstances) is likely to be in a melee group and singing melee buff songs of various types.

Bard hp regen is a very low priority on a raid. Druid is too for that matter.

The only ones that routinely want regen are the necros. No one else really bothers with it.

At least in my guild.

"I think that some of the druids here do have a real problem with visiting clerics posting opinions in any fashion at all."

When the norm tends to be from posters like Foulsbane and Mooky, we do tend to be on our guard.

Whilst there are very well spoken Clerics like Belkram and others. I particularly like Girlie's post, for she makes the Druid points rather clear, albeit seemingly unknowingly. /smile.

"I also think the clerical community hasn't distinguished itself with some of the posts we've made here, but then, a quick glance at the cleric boards will show you trolls who I strongly suspect of being druids acting fairly antisocially. The main difference is that this board has posts with titles like `Clerics - Step into my office` (and the contents of that post might have been reasonable but the choice of title was a clear case of direct cleric-bashing, from a moderator at that)."

I would not like druid trolls on your board to be representative of me or the Druid community. Nor, I do not think that Sobe's post, content, or title could be construed as 'bashing', seemed patriarchal and familial to me.

"The dictionary definition of benchmark doesn't seem to be relevant to the point that I was making."

It is your responsibility to use the correct word then, no? We all know that Warriors were/are used as the benchmark for the other melee classes. Many assume that Clerics are the benchmark for wis casters, in the same way. Has nothing to do with the population size of a class, modal representation might be closer to what you had in mind.

Since there really is no benchmark Int caster, I think the question of the original title is appropriate.

Haha, there is never a situation that a warrior can hold aggro better than a paladin.

Sure, but there are situations where either could hold aggro, correct ?

I mean, this is like comparing Superior Heal to Greater Heal when your tank has 100hp. If the tank is holding aggro (i.e. xp group) then who has the `most` taunt is irrelevant.

When a warrior is tanking, everyone has to watch their aggro in order not to take it. When a paladin is tanking, no one has to hold back.

Situational, again, and hard to generalize. If you're in an XP group which is chain-pulling low blues in Sebilis or something, aggro isn't really a problem for anyone at the level of the game you're talking about; if you're in 4c in CT, it doesn't matter who's tanking, aggro management is high on everyone's list of priorities.

As a matter of fact, the hp difference can be made up for by the fact that a paladin doesn't have to take riposte damage while tanking a tough mob, but a warrior will be using very fast, high taunt weapons which means they will be taking maximum riposte damage.

Speaking as a cleric, I'm fairly familiar with how much damage people take in different situations. Up until a recent patch, my entire life was spent watching HP bars like a hawk. ;)

Either our EQ gaming experiences have been very, very different, or else you'll agree that in 95% of xp group situations, a warrior costs a load less mana to keep healed than a paladin.

I'd drafted a detailed reply to your weapons analysis, but I decided to skip it. I fear that the whole subject of warrior DPS -v- paladin DPS is in danger of seriously derailing this thread, which is supposed to be about priest class balancing. Suffice it to say that the two tanks I group with most regularly are a warrior with 84AA and a paladin with 79AA, both human, both with reasonably decent gear, and the warrior produces about 20% more DPS. I'm prepared to accept that other people may have different perceptions.

When the norm tends to be from posters like Foulsbane and Mooky, we do tend to be on our guard.

I appreciate that there are posters here you don't like. Taken in context, my remark was nevertheless thoroughly appropriate.

Nor, I do not think that Sobe's post, content, or title could be construed as 'bashing', seemed patriarchal and familial to me.

I specifically stated that the content was reasonable and that my issue was with the title. Surely you'll understand that to a visiting cleric it came across as more than a little patronizing, not to say downright hostile, given that we'd been invited to come to your forums and participate in a discussion ?

It is your responsibility to use the correct word then, no?

The word wasn't mine, it came from the title of this thread.

I queried whether it was correct to assume that the cleric class would form the benchmark against which the other WIS casters would be balanced. I stated that I was aware of the historical, AD&D-based class/subclass view in which clerics were considered the `default` WIS caster, but I questioned its relevance in view of the fact that this isn't AD&D.

I do think that the Dev team will use clerics as the `benchmark` WIS caster - but I honestly believe that druids are so over-represented in EQ that it's probably more accurate to assume that they are the default or benchmark WIS caster class. From what other people have posted, that may not be the case on every server.

Do I take this to mean that, as a moderator, you do not consider that I'm trolling ?

I used the terms patriarchal and familial rather than patronizing. I am sorry that you thought it hostile. If you knew the Sobe that I know, you would know that was absolutely the furthest thing that was intended.

I envisioned a Fonzie beckoning a Richie Cunningham into the the office to offer some friendly words of advice. Not in a condescending way, but in a mentor type of way.

You are invited(as are all Clerics) to come here for discussions. I have conceded that there are druids probably flocking to your board filling it up with trollish trash. I would not condone that, and don't. I certainly would not like the idea(and don't) that you clerics would stereotype me in their category. I would expect that Cleric posters at the Cleric board are equally on guard for trollish posters, Druid or otherwise. No harm, no foul.

There have been notable Clerics who have come here with absolutely excellent posts. And not just fawning 2 boxers either, or that are kow-towing to some doctrine. Posts that are rife with disagreement with the Druid cause celebre. But are welcome for their alternate point of view as well as being cogently written. Such that if I were a Cleric, I would be proud to have them represent me here.

I know the word from the title was what it is, but I don't think that it represents what you are trying to express. Only a definitional disagreement. I even offered a different expression, benchmark does not mean the "most popular" or "highest number of"(which is the idea I thought you were trying to express). Modal(not model) I believe is the word you are expressing.

And why would I consider you a troll?

Disagreeing with me or others is not a condition of being a troll. Hell, I have been accused twice(at least) in the last few days of flaming, by druids, because I disagree with them. Disagreement is an absolutely important reason there are boards like the DG. They would cease to exist if everyone agreed with everyone else. If everyone agreed and everything was said, we would not be here.

You are falling for the Cleric troll's shift in tactics. You know as well as I do that improved Druid healing does nothing bad to Paladins (It does nothing bad to Clerics either, but they are generally too greedy or too stupid to figure that out). This Cleric troll is like all the others - she is here to convince you why you should be happy not getting improvements. She, unlike so many other Cleric trolls, has finally figured out that telling us that Clerics will lose their stranglehold on highend groups is not going to convince us, so she has shifted gears and is now trying to convince us not to ask for heals for the sake of the poor Paladins. Please, please, please, do not validate the crap spewed by these Cleric trolls by responding to it. Just ignore it like it was never posted. If we all do this, all these Cleric trolls will eventually go back to the comfort and nerf-calling hate of EQClerics.

The Cleric poster obviously thinks she will have a better chance of convincing Druids that we don't need better healing if she can make a case that we are stepping on Paladin toes. Her end motive is the same - keep Druids down, maintain Cleric healing monopoly.

Since, in your opinion, I'm not trolling, please would you put your moderator hat on and moderate this guy here ? I don't mind a spirited argument but he's going over the top.

You might also want to have a look at other recent posts by the same guy and see how many of them received moderator attention also.

I can't believe you guys made me read ANOTHER 3+ page thread :(

Ok, one by one - Aaeamdar, Shadow, please don't tell me how to do my job. Whether this is telling me who to ban, who to moderate, who do to what. If you feel that someone has gone overboard, click on the link to my website - that has a link to my email (I don't post it directly on my sig cause there's a lot of spambots that patrol the EZBoards). Shoot me a note with a link to the thread, and I'll promise I'll look at it. This does not mean I'll agree with your assessment 100% of the time, but I will read the thread in question.

Quite honestly, posting in a thread about getting someone else moderated is more likely to get me annoyed with you than get the other person moderated. The exceptions being if post is blatantly overboard (swearing, ads, racial slurs, etc).

Anyone else here who decides that all clerics are trolls needs to take a good hard look at why you think that. If you've got problems with clerics posting here, then I suggest you figure out a way to get over it. This is a public forum and all classes are welcome here and welcomed to voice their opinion, no matter how much we may disagree with it. You are allowed to disagree with them, just try not to make an @$$ out of yourself while doing it.

Keep broad generalizations about how bad players from other classes are to yourself. One person does not represent an entire class, nor do you represent all of the druids. If you've had problems with other classes in the past, yes, that's going to influence how you think about that class. However, that should not blind you and keep you from listening to what they have to say. Hell, you may even learn something.

*sigh* back.

Look at what you just said, please. I'll try to paraphrase it in the way that it comes across to me.

"How dare you make me read another three page thread."

Gee, sorry, are we boring you ? :mad:

"When a visitor wants a moderator to look at something, the visitor locates a post from a moderator, clicks the link in that moderator's signature, follows that to a website, on the website finds a link to the moderator's email, and sends a mail. Communicating with a moderator via direct posting in a thread is only likely to get the moderator miffed at the visitor. Visiting posters are expected to know this."

Are you positive that's what you meant to imply ?

"Because the above rants don't contain racial slurs, ads, or swearing, they are not `blatantly overboard` so kindly stop whining to moderators about them."

Are you sure this is the message you want to get across ?
__________________________________________________ ____________________

You see, I think we're getting to the root of the problems between clerics and druids here. Because to me, that feels like an answer from a moderator whose approach is, perhaps, rather less than impartial. But then, I don't think that's necessarily how you wanted it to sound.

I went to EQclerics and I'd drafted a huge tirade of bitterness against druids who invited clerics over to their boards for inter-class discussions, then when I go across and discuss, I get the hell ripped out of me by a pack of savage hounds and when I call on the moderators they tell me to sod off and stop whining. It was a devastatingly sarcastic anti-druid rant, and I was very proud of it.

Then I deleted it before hitting `add post` because going and posting on the cleric boards about how druids suck won't help, any more than posting on the druid boards about how clerics suck won't help.

I think we all need to be a little more careful about the words we use and the way we phrase things if we're going to get anywhere with these discussions.

Let me ask you outright:-

* Is it OK that I, a cleric, come here and discuss priest caster balancing with you ? Because from this, it doesn't feel like it's OK.

* If it is OK, what level of direct hostility and outright flaming from angry druids am I expected to swallow before their behaviour becomes unacceptable ?

* Are these standards different for clerics than for druids ? In other words, am I expected or even allowed to reply to Aaea~ in the same terms he uses on me ?

Shadow,
I would suggest you go back and look at my replies to (or about) you. You have essentially posted 3 groups (other than your thread on why you should not be called a troll) of threads here: 1. Druids shoudl be the benchmark, 2. Paladin stuff (starting with "Druid's should not want group heals because of the poor Paladin), 3. I list of specific changes for Druids (that included healing upgrades).

If you go back and look at it, I responded civilly to threads 1 and 3, even agreeing with you in part on thread 3. I called you a troll for thread 2. I will continue to do so anytime you try and make a case for Druid's not getting healing upgrades for specious reasons. Expressing agast that a Druid and a Paladin (if the gimp heal goes live) might be able to replace a Cleric is trolling from my book. Anything that comes out of a Cleric designed for the purpose of, expressing as the proper state of things that, etc., maintaining Cleric monopoly on highend groups (and raids). You need to be replacable by (though not interchangable with) a SINGLE class in any circumstance, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. That you should be concerned that TWO classes could replace a SINGLE Cleric in a group is just plain trolling in my book.

Now, my policy has been to generally not even acknowledge the existance of people that post stuff like that, but you seem to (with the exception of that one thread) be reasonably well motivated. As long as it stays that way, and you continue to focus on suggestions for improving the Druid class (which does not mean agreeing with every suggested improvement, as long as your objection to an improvment does not relate to "but that will make Clerics no longer REQUIRED in situation X" - that is, if you want to argue that Clerics will no longer be desirable at all, fine, but no longer required, not fine - then great), then you will not get the troll lable by me and I will continue respect your opinion and reply to it in a civil way. If you stray into "But the Clerics won't be required," I will ignore whatever you have to say and your name may come up in a reply I make to another Druid about how we should ignore trolls.

As to your last question, as far as I am concerned, call me anything you want and reply to me in any fashion you see fit as long as it falls into the clearly established guidelines posted at the top of this page. It won't bother me in the least.

I went to EQclerics and I'd drafted a huge tirade of bitterness against druids who invited clerics over to their boards for inter-class discussions, then when I go across and discuss...

By the way, that was one Druid (though a moderator) who invited you here, and she invited you to post in one thread. I read the beggining of that thread and have ignored it ever since. If you are really intent on being in a conversation on this board where you can have complete safty of not seeing me reply to you or about you, go post in and read in only that thread.

That said, I am happy to have you here as long as you do not defend the notion that Cleric should be REQUIRED (as opposed to desirable) in highend groups (and raids).

I don't really care how you take it, Shadow. And yes, multiple page threads bore the hell out of me because it's the same regurgitated crap that's been said on the first two pages, just repeated over and over again using different words. Not to mention the fact that what's on the first two pages was probably already addressed in another thread entirely. You're putting words into my mouth or you're reading things between the lines that aren't there. You assume what you want to, everyone who knows me here knows that I don't embellish with hidden messages, I'm a pretty blunt person.

As far as I'm concerned, the best message on this thread was posted by Tuved on page three:
I honestly don't care anymore.

Then it's pointless for a cleric to participate in discussions here. Bye.

"Then it's pointless for a cleric to participate in discussions here. Bye."

Well that is 2 so far that suckered me.

Wish you would just do that in the beginning, and save us all a bunch of time.


Next time just....


First Post:
"i proved my point, bye, la~"

I dunno why I feel the need to reply here. But I'm bored, why not?

If the druid 3k CH goes in, you'll reach a situation where one druid + one paladin can do everything one cleric can do in terms of XP group healing (and a whole load more besides).

So, you're upset, that even if my class gets upgraded, it will *still* take 2 classes to cover what you alone can do?

For goodness' sake let the poor pallies keep the few little semi-unique abilities they have left, and ask to get abilities that have been granted to some other class !

Now, I know you're not overly concerned about Paladins. Please don't pretend to be. And no, group healing is not at all a unique ability (even semi-unique) to Paladins, because, guess what, Clerics can do it (Faaaaaaaar more efficently, mind you) better than Paladins can.

Either our EQ gaming experiences have been very, very different, or else you'll agree that in 95% of xp group situations, a warrior costs a load less mana to keep healed than a paladin.

Perhaps our experiences are much diffrent. Because I can tell you right now, I don't like grouping with Warriors when I am the sole healer. I can't keep them healed efficently. Atleast when I group with Paladins, they can help keep themselves healed for me inbetween pulls.

Is it OK that I, a cleric, come here and discuss priest caster balancing with you ? Because from this, it doesn't feel like it's OK.

It's perfectly okay for a Cleric to come here and discuss priest caster balancing. Arguing back and forth does nothing. And, I'm sorry, you have some pretty slanted views. But, I suppose that could be said for some Druids here as well.

If it is OK, what level of direct hostility and outright flaming from angry druids am I expected to swallow before their behaviour becomes unacceptable ?

For 1, you have been flamed by 2 Druids thus far, in this thread. 2, you're not exactly doing a service to your Cleric brothers and sisters with your flames. 3, you don't have to swallow anything, this is a class board for Druids, not Clerics. While you're invited to participate and offer whatever you have to offer to us, you don't *have* to come here. Come to think of it, you don't *have* to "swallow" anything from anyone, you could always not visit online forums where heated discussions and whatnot are discussed and debated.

I don't have a problem with you, or any Cleric for that matter, based on class. And, there have been some Clerics coming here offering good ideas (even if I don't agree with all of them).

Bickering back and forth, reguardless of class, dosen't really accomplish anything. /shrug But I'm just as guilty on occasion.

Lots of things going on.

Please dont post a thread asking if clerics should be the benchmark to wisdom casters then outright disagree with anything a cleric has to say when they reply here.

Balance by the definition we have recieved from Mr Waters is that each class will be equally viable in solo, raid and group formats. Viable means they can perform fucntions at each level that they and others percieve as valueable as well as be able to earn experience in the process (doesnt apply to raids...go go Raid exp gadget).

That said, keep in mind the healing part of the game is the hardest to tune. Everything is reliant upon it. By balancing one class you can change the niche another class has that is perceived by others as being of worth. Note that word percieved Im using a lot. Percieved doesnt neccesarily means its TRUE worth but how others see it.

A druid group heal that is superior to Paladins' Wave of Prexus spell may not neccessarily make them less powerful but it will change how people percieve their raid worth. They have it, they use it quite well and they enjoy being back up healers in SOME, but not all encounters.

Heals over time I agree are a Druids' forte. But why think in the category of 24 seconds? Why not think in the 60 second range? For exp grinding, for offsetting Slower AE damages, for offsetting ripostes and parries, for offsetting rod damage...I would say that a 3000 point heal over the course of one minute for 400mana would be a tremendous asset to raids. Stacking issues with CE aside I dont know why this avenue isnt being persued. Combine that with a targeted blast heal in the range of Ethereal Light and Druids would be HUGE assets at raids.

Ill be real honest here with the overall cleric viewpoint. We dont expect anything from Verant because they tend to nerf us, tell us one thing and do another, and generally ignore what we have to say about a class and game we enjoy and want to have fun in. A lot of us are deadset adamant about bringing something more than healing to a group before we see Druid changes because we have seen the stick so many times we dont know what the carrot looks like anymore.

Yes I know they just made some changes. They then nerfed things back down after people were reporting parses of 60DPS on a cleric with *gasp* 41 percent haste, a pet going, shaman buffs (or avatar), MoR and Yaulp5, and well apparently they never step out of combat to heal themselves. Im no slouch in AC or HPs myself. I break 1200ac and 4k HPs self buffed, but I damn sure cant tank the mobs all the way through with no heals soloing. The hammer as it sits now is roughly equal to root/nuking. I cannot testify to the dropped hammers but I suspect they are of a similar level to the pre-nerf one; most reports indicate this.

I agree that Druids need viable healing solutions, I just think the mindset is stuck in saying CH is the only way that you arent considering options or different avenues. Both Clerics and Druids arent quite right in each of the three areas Rich Waters specifies. Shamans are closest but their spell drops are in need of adjustment...80k for a Kunark spell is ludicrous in the extreme. Druids need more for raids in defensive or healing abilities. Clerics need more offense and ability to do things on their own. I think everyone generally agrees these things are true.

But the day that ten thousand people can agree on one way to do something is the day that they are going to need spaceheaters in hell.

Post ideas, give thoughts, give perspective, contribute to the conversation. Insulting people is easy, thinking about what they are saying and looking at its merits is HARD. Using words like troll, stupid, dumb, in reagrds to a class doesnt do anything to help either side. The person posting is a PLAYER, just like you are that wants to have fun ingame and feel like they are doing a good job and contributing to others fun as well.

Moderators, by telling the people you moderate that they can flame and get away with it more than a new person can, you are giving them free license to do so. Civility is in such short supply anyway, making people toe the line to treat each other as human beings aint a whole lot to ask is it?

Rambling as always, Belkram


PS *gives Aawulf the secret BBer handshake* Whats up man!?Havent seen you in a while :)


edited to say hi to Aawulf.

Please dont post a thread asking if clerics should be the benchmark to wisdom casters then outright disagree with anything a cleric has to say when they reply here.

Okay, you lost me here. What options would it leave me if I follow your advice? Change my point of view and blindly accept everything stated by a cleric to be fact? (not gonna happen) Lie to you and tell you I agree and in the process make it look to others like I changed my point of view? (not gonna happen either) Ignore all clerics that don't agree with me? And why is it that clerics can't be disagreed with when they are often here disagreeing with my point of view? I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. I will give you one option though. If you don't ever wan't someone to disagree with you, don't post your opinion on a public forum because there is someone out there that doesn't agree with you.

I conveyed that badly...

The post has the title of "Priest balancing-Is Cleric the benchmark?" Yet most cleric posters have to endure insults and flames if they post contrary to the current ebb and flow of ideas on this board. Just because someone doesnt agree with your position doesnt mean they hate you. Lets face it, some ideas have merit no matter which class they come from...yes? Disagree yes....but disagree, insult, flame, and put down, no.

Clerics are GOING to post with that title. Let them. Debate ideas, open your minds, think about what you want to say and post back. And if what you want to say is that so and so is retarded, stupid and they arent making a point because they suck then I would ask why did you read what they wrote? Heh. It goes round and round.


Belkram

Lets face it, some ideas have merit no matter which class they come from...yes?

Certainly true. The one exception that is relevant to the conversation, however, is the idea that Clerics should maintain their healing monopoly on raids and high-end groups. That thought has no merit, and really is the only thought I was encouraging all Druids here to simply ignore.

Clerics are GOING to post with that title. Let them. Debate ideas, open your minds...

Of course. Unless, again, you are expecting me to open my mind to the concept that Clerics should maintain their healing monopoly on raids and high-end groups. My mind is forever shut to that idea. That concept (and CH, the spell that created it) is the single biggest problem with EQ today. If some Cleric wantted to open a discussion of how Druid improvements should focus on debuffs and damage and that Druids should get little or no healing increases, but that CH should be given to Shamen and Necros, I might not agree that is the best approach, but I would entertain the suggestion and discuss it (but would wonder why the poster decided to discuss it on the Druid boards). The Clerics I encouraged everyone here to ignore are the ones that wanted to come in here for the purpose of convincing us that Clerics needed to keep their lock on high-end groups. Those Clerics remain nothing other than greedy, spoiled trolls.

Aaeamdar, Im sorry the kindest word that I can think of to describe your post content is combative.

You propose to ignore the people that think Clerics should remain the top healer for raids and high-end, single group encounters. You are of course aware that the Dev team believes that Clerics should be the top healers for raids and high-end, single group encounters arent you?

Im FOR giving Druids raid quality heals so they can contribute more on raids. I also think that any raid quality heal will be a more powerful heal to a group far more than it will to a raid. The impact on 6 versus is 60 is always greater.

The Cleric standpoint has been if the heal goes live we need to bring another option to grouping rather than a solely defensive one and/or we need to have a viable, efficient soloing option.

I do NOT however believe that Druids should heal on equal footing with Clerics. A full Complete Heal spell with no downside would be great for Druids for raiding. It would be HUGELY overbalancing to the grouping situation. With the other abilities that Druids bring to the table the various utility, offensive, defensive packages they have they would be the preferred class hands down. Remember the wording was equal footing. Problem is perception is as much a part of getting a group as the actual abilities are. If people think or perceive one class to be better than the other they will prefer one over the other. Human nature.

Another thing of note is that I see many Druids stating that there have been no Druid improvements yet. I dont understand this at all. Havent 6 of the items on the petition gone live already? Or am I mistaken somehow? Im not sure what the reasoning is on withholding the heal until later but that is what has been done. I dont agree with that either. As many balance issues as possible should have gone live at the same time. But then again, I dont know what else is planned.

Before I hear the lament of the hammer being live now. Please let me know how the bought spell is any more efficient than root nuking is? Its not. Endless parses of damage have born that out. The damage the Cleric soloing accrues over the course of a combat combined with the lowering of the damage rate has changed the soloing picture dramatically from patch to patch. I will agree that the dropped hammer is much better sight unseen, there have been too many reports that it is indeed a more active proc ratio.


Aaeamdar you tell me what healing tools you think you need to raid and do high-end single group content and Ill debate with you. Please stop dropping all imbalancing issues to CH. Its something we have to live with and work with or around. I cant see Verant retuning 3 and a half years worth of content when the lifespan of the game appears to be narrowing out. Lets figure something else out so the Dev team can take the credit for it! :P


Belkram