EQ2: Question for you 20+ players

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Whereas I do like the fact that they've taken great strides in making
sure that no one particular class becomes more desired or important to
encounters than all others, I don't like the feeling of only having four
basic class "identities", so to speak. I was just wondering how this
works out once you select your final sub-class at level 20. Does there
feel like there is much more variety in the classes at that point, or do
the four archetypes still pretty much end up serving the same purpose?
Serving the same purpose isn't really the best way to phrase it - maybe
developing it's own identity would be more correct.

For example (class balance issues notwithstanding), in EQL I really
liked the shaman class. I identified with the aspect of
strengthening/improving my party while lessening the capabilities of our
enemies. Sure, I could heal like druids and clerics, but, that not being
my primary focus, I didn't do it as well. I could fill in as healer, but
that wasn't my primary focus. That was ok, because I brought other
abilities to the table.

Same for my shadowknight (again, class balance issues notwithstanding),
I thought the whole idea of an evil warrior with great potential to
"affect" a mob in such a way as to make it immediately view me as the
threat of all threats, be it through high burst damage or tapping into
the powers of darkness. Sure I could tank and endure all the mob's fury
being directed at me, but not as well as a warrior. That was ok, because
I had my own talents that were a big help to the group.

Then there were the classes that offered many different skills to a
lesser degree (druids, bards, etc.). Whereas they weren't necessarily
best at anything in particular, they could fill many different roles
admirably. They really appealed to the "jack-of-all-trades" playstyle.

Obviously, for a variety of different reasons, SoE were unable to
balance the classes effectively in that scenario, but I still prefer
that approach to any other I've seen - many different classes, each able
to contribute in their own identifying way. This doesn't have to be
merely to promote class balance, but also to promote the availability of
a wide variety of character types to which the avid player can identify
and apply their own playstyle.

So, to make a long question a little longer, I was wondering how well
each archetype splits within itself after level 20. The statement that
all priests, for example, can be utilized interchangeably in groups
sounds good on the surface, but is it due to the fact that they all
pretty much do the same thing, just by casting different spells? I'm
familiar with the mystics use of wards primarily as opposed to heals
(though I don't assume they don't have heals available to them as well),
but isn't that just proactive healing as opposed to reactive healing?
What else seperates that mystic from a cleric as far as playstyle and
unique abilities go? I would ask the same about the other three
archetypes as well.

I've just reached level 12 on one of my characters, and so far the game
seems kind of "plastic" for lack of a better word. The efforts that have
been made in the interest of class balance and fair play just jump out
at me at every turn, they are so prevalent. I'm just assuming that the
game starts to come into it's own at level 20-ish, but I'd like some
feedback from the 20+ crowd on how this is accomplished.

I'm enjoying EQ2, though it does seem to be more of an acquired taste
than EQL or WoW or any other MMORPG I've played.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin

 

[Wolfie]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Rumbledor wrote:

> Does there feel like there is much more variety in the
> classes at that point,

A druid will play entirely different from a cleric or
shaman (and the same for the other classes) past-20.
That's true from about 12 up (when classes start
getting class-defining spells) and increases to a minor
degree with levels. (The biggest change is in the 10-19
range when they get class spells. After that it's more
defining the difference rather than the huge "wow,
*entirely* different spells in the teens.)

> or do the four archetypes still pretty much end up
> serving the same purpose? Serving the same purpose
> isn't really the best way to phrase it - maybe developing
> it's own identity would be more correct.

That would depend on what you mean by "identity."
A group with a mystic in it will use different tactics
than a group with a fury -- which would use different
tactics than a group with a warden. But they can
all kill the same mobs equally effectively...

> I still prefer that approach to any other I've seen - many
> different classes, each able to contribute in their own
> identifying way.

I'm not sure I understand the difference. As long as
you make the *fundamental* decision each class can
do the same job, after that *everything* is "flavor."
If you do a good job, that "flavor" affects tactics, but
it still *appears* as "flavor." A 150 HP ward is the
same as 150 HPs of regen is the same as 150 HP
heal. But tactics within the group -- and by the
healer -- vary to accomodate different aggro, etc.

> What else seperates that mystic from a cleric as far as
> playstyle and unique abilities go?

Aggro management, mob debuffs as compared to
player buffs, etc. Same thing as in EQ -- except
the shaman has the same healing effectiveness (and
the heals work entirely differently...)

> I've just reached level 12 on one of my characters, and so far the
> game seems kind of "plastic" for lack of a better word.

Well, 10 of those levels you were one a six classes.
I'm not sure how different you could be...

> I'm just assuming that the game starts to come into it's
> own at level 20-ish, but I'd like some feedback from
> the 20+ crowd on how this is accomplished.

More like ~12 when the first wards/regens/whatever
are received. Can't speak for the non-priest classes
but I'd guess the same. After that it's refinement...

> I'm enjoying EQ2, though it does seem to be more of
> an acquired taste than EQL or WoW or any other
> MMORPG I've played.

They've got a few things *perfect* IMO. And a few
that need tweaking still. And some just off-the-wall
*bad.*

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <U_WDd.224819$6w6.2537@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
dbgbdwolf@gte.net says...
> Rumbledor wrote:
>
> > Does there feel like there is much more variety in the
> > classes at that point,
>
> A druid will play entirely different from a cleric or
> shaman (and the same for the other classes) past-20.
> That's true from about 12 up (when classes start
> getting class-defining spells) and increases to a minor
> degree with levels. (The biggest change is in the 10-19
> range when they get class spells. After that it's more
> defining the difference rather than the huge "wow,
> *entirely* different spells in the teens.)
>
> > or do the four archetypes still pretty much end up
> > serving the same purpose? Serving the same purpose
> > isn't really the best way to phrase it - maybe developing
> > it's own identity would be more correct.
>
> That would depend on what you mean by "identity."
> A group with a mystic in it will use different tactics
> than a group with a fury -- which would use different
> tactics than a group with a warden. But they can
> all kill the same mobs equally effectively...
>
Well that's disappointing.

"Everyone can kill the same mobs equally effectively" suggests that
there aren't substantial differences in the mobs.

I like the idea of mobs that are harder for a caster heavy group, but
trivial for a group of melees, and converse mobs that melees can take
with great effort, but which casters shred.

 

[Wolfie]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 wrote:

>> That would depend on what you mean by "identity."
>> A group with a mystic in it will use different tactics
>> than a group with a fury -- which would use different
>> tactics than a group with a warden. But they can
>> all kill the same mobs equally effectively...
>>
> Well that's disappointing.
>
> "Everyone can kill the same mobs equally effectively" suggests that
> there aren't substantial differences in the mobs.

Uh, no -- It means groups don't have to pick a cleric
over a shaman or druid for *any* mob. All priests
heal equally well, just in different ways. And the same
is true for other archtypes -- tank classes tank equally
well (although differently), and so on.

They eliminated the need for any particular *class*
in a group -- the need for certain *class types*
still exists. AFAIK there's no "magical" class
that people won't fight without -- and that's as it
should be. A druid LFG should be able to heal
for a group as well as a cleric; likewise, a cleric
should be able to solo as well as a druid. And so
on and so on.

> I like the idea of mobs that are harder for a caster heavy
> group, but trivial for a group of melees, and converse mobs
> that melees can take with great effort, but which casters shred.

That's an entirely different idea than balance within class
types -- and one I can't address, not having a 50 char
who has attempted every mob in the game... But some
mobs are more resistant to certain types of damage or
have more HPs and less resists, etc -- same as in EQ.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:53:45 GMT, "Wolfie" <dbgbdwolf@gte.net>
wrotCRIVE_E

>Uh, no -- It means groups don't have to pick a cleric
>over a shaman or druid for *any* mob. All priests
>heal equally well, just in different ways. And the same
>is true for other archtypes -- tank classes tank equally
>well (although differently), and so on.

Pretty much. As a Paladin, I have slightly fewer aggro-holding
abilities but more buffing, healing, and 'I take damage when you get
hit' abilities. The new training options allowed me to buff up my
taunt and nuke to increase aggro, so I can hold it better...I did that
because I usually am MT in my guild hunting groups. If I wasn't, I'd
have buffed damage or my self-buffs.

*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <ZvZDd.205173$Oc.52964@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
dbgbdwolf@gte.net says...
> 42 wrote:
>
> >> That would depend on what you mean by "identity."
> >> A group with a mystic in it will use different tactics
> >> than a group with a fury -- which would use different
> >> tactics than a group with a warden. But they can
> >> all kill the same mobs equally effectively...
> >>
> > Well that's disappointing.
> >
> > "Everyone can kill the same mobs equally effectively" suggests that
> > there aren't substantial differences in the mobs.
>
> Uh, no -- It means groups don't have to pick a cleric
> over a shaman or druid for *any* mob. All priests
> heal equally well, just in different ways. And the same
> is true for other archtypes -- tank classes tank equally
> well (although differently), and so on.
>
> They eliminated the need for any particular *class*
> in a group -- the need for certain *class types*
> still exists.

And given there are only 4 class types, you can have all of them in
every group.

> AFAIK there's no "magical" class
> that people won't fight without -- and that's as it
> should be.

In general yes, in particular encounters: No.

ie There should be encounters that do favour a particular class over all
others. And such encounters should exist and be relevant for each class.

> A druid LFG should be able to heal
> for a group as well as a cleric; likewise, a cleric
> should be able to solo as well as a druid. And so
> on and so on.

Not much to make druids feel special in that model.

I agree that EQ got it wrong with its ridiculous weighting on clerics.
(although THAT is primarily exacerbated by denying the alternative
healers rezzes...a druid can just say 'sorry you all lost the evenings
xp gain guys' and that is stupid, particularly as the cleric, being the
best healer in the game is the least likely to run dry in a fight in the
first place and is thus least likely to actually need the rez.)

So druids/shamen are double curse... they aren't the best healers in the
game, and if that shortcoming is made manifest they can't even repair
the damage after the fact. That's just bad design.

To top off the insult there are no zones/encounters where druids or
shamen are the favoured healers. So yeah, EQ is totally out of balance
there.

But EQ2s genericness was the wrong way to fix the problem. Giving the
alt healers rez was a good move, but then they failed to preserve their
uniqueness -- the differences are just tactical flavour -- you never
really need a druid, or even prefer one, any healer-class will fill the
healer-slot in any/every situation.

That is disappointing.

> > I like the idea of mobs that are harder for a caster heavy
> > group, but trivial for a group of melees, and converse mobs
> > that melees can take with great effort, but which casters shred.
>
> That's an entirely different idea than balance within class
> types

No, actually its not different at all.

> -- and one I can't address, not having a 50 char
> who has attempted every mob in the game... But some
> mobs are more resistant to certain types of damage or
> have more HPs and less resists, etc -- same as in EQ.

But if you can still take the mobs equally effectively with any
reasonable group composition these 'tactical differences' are largely
irrelevant.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 10 Jan 2005 10:48:08 -0800, "Meaffwin" <suka_@cox.net> wrote:

>Since there is no PvP in this game, there haven't been many direct
>comparisons yet. As the game matures and more log parsers are released
>(I know of two), expect more nerf calls to be made.

Note also that WoW has a lot more people in general, and a lot of BNet
kiddiez playing. While they're ignorable in-game, this does mean that
the forums are going to have a lot more whining and bitching.

--
Dark Tyger

Sympathy for the retailer:
http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
"Door's to your left" -Gord
(I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

Protect free speech: http://stopfcc.com/

 

[Wolfie]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 wrote:

>> AFAIK there's no "magical" class
>> that people won't fight without -- and that's as it
>> should be.
>
> In general yes, in particular encounters: No.

> ie There should be encounters that do favour a particular class over
> all others. And such encounters should exist and be relevant for each
> class.

No one said they didn't exist. I'm sure there are some
mobs which are trivial to a tank/healer/four DPS group
but tough for a tank/healer/four caster group -- and
vice versa. I guess we'll have to disagree whether ANY
mob should REQUIRE a particular class -- unless that
mob is triggered by a quest for that class.

>> A druid LFG should be able to heal
>> for a group as well as a cleric; likewise, a cleric
>> should be able to solo as well as a druid. And so
>> on and so on.
>
> Not much to make druids feel special in that model.

Well, it's a simplification. Druids do NOT *heal* as
well as clerics, for instance. But they also bring things
like damage shields to the group (for an increase in
DPS) clerics don't. Shaman bring buffs and debuffs
with small heals and big wards. And so on...

The point is a group depends on a *priest* -- and
changes their tactics based on which *type* of
priest they get. A tank doesn't care he's not
getting damage, for instance, with a shaman as
priest or getting big heals from a cleric or getting
regen from a druid -- it's all good.

> I agree that EQ got it wrong with its ridiculous weighting on clerics.
> (although THAT is primarily exacerbated by denying the alternative
> healers rezzes...a druid can just say 'sorry you all lost the evenings
> xp gain guys' and that is stupid, particularly as the cleric, being
> the best healer in the game is the least likely to run dry in a fight
> in the first place and is thus least likely to actually need the rez.)

Rezzes were part of it. The other was the overpowering
nature of CHeal. There was simply no effective way for
other priests to compete with it.

> But EQ2s genericness was the wrong way to fix the problem.

I disagree they're generic -- there's a major difference in
getting regen vs a heal vs a ward. That's even more true
when you bring in the "side" issues -- increased damage,
debuffs, HP/AC buffs, whatever -- each class brings to
a group.

> Giving the
> alt healers rez was a good move, but then they failed to preserve
> their uniqueness -- the differences are just tactical flavour -- you
> never really need a druid, or even prefer one, any healer-class will
> fill the healer-slot in any/every situation.

Again, a lot depends on mobs your fighting. A druid
might be *better* in some circumstances than other
priests (and the same is true of other classes.) But
you don't REQUIRE the druid to succeed.

> But if you can still take the mobs equally effectively with any
> reasonable group composition these 'tactical differences' are largely
> irrelevant.

C'mon -- "tactical differences" are what make the game fun.
This isn't "hit attack and press the taunt button until the mob
is dead" warrior play.... Groups function differently based
on the member classes -- as it should be. But they can also
all succeed -- again, as it should be. I don't see the issue...

 

[Wolfie]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Rumbledor wrote:

> Sure, you might say that these games basically only involve four roles
> to begin with (dealing damage, taking damage, healing damage, crowd
> control), but EQL allows you to select a class that can excel at more
> than one or even more of those. You have classes that are better at
> pulling (I miss mob splitting), buffing, de-buffing, sneaking or other
> highly useful spells of utility.

But that's exactly what EQ2 does as well. The difference is
only they've done a better job of making them balanced.
Let me restate something I said earlier (and I'll make up the
numbers since I haven't researched them...)

Say a cleric gets a 150 HP heal. A druid doesn't NEED a
150 HP regen to be as effective -- he needs a 120 HP regen
and a damage shield that makes up the difference by killing
the mobs faster. A shaman doesn't need a 150 HP ward;
he can get by with an 80 HP ward and a slow to make up
the difference. Balance the power costs and you end up
with a game where a group doesn't NEED any one class;
they all work EFFECTIVELY as well.

The bottom line is they BALANCED the healing ability.
It LOOKS like they're all the same -- but they're not,
they're different.

> That's certainly undesirable. However, they may have gone
> to the other extreme with EQ2 - making sure class doesn't
> matter.

Does it matter? Should it? If it does -- you are going to
create "super" classes IMO.

Ultimately a druid is a priest -- and a cleric is a priest -- and
a shaman is a priest. They may all work differently and
bring different things to the group, but they'll all be able to
do their primary role -- healing. They'll accomplish that
by doing things like reducing damage (slows) or increasing
damage (damage shields & DoTs or nukes) or increasing
HPs (buffs) -- or better, by some combination of all of them
so no one class is much better solo. But it's all the same
thing -- they can keep a group alive. What else would you
want?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Wolfie" <dbgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in
news:nTAEd.214660$Oc.194317@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> Rumbledor wrote:
>
>> Sure, you might say that these games basically only involve four
>> roles to begin with (dealing damage, taking damage, healing damage,
>> crowd control), but EQL allows you to select a class that can excel
>> at more than one or even more of those. You have classes that are
>> better at pulling (I miss mob splitting), buffing, de-buffing,
>> sneaking or other highly useful spells of utility.
>
> But that's exactly what EQ2 does as well. The difference is
> only they've done a better job of making them balanced.
> Let me restate something I said earlier (and I'll make up the
> numbers since I haven't researched them...)
>
> Say a cleric gets a 150 HP heal. A druid doesn't NEED a
> 150 HP regen to be as effective -- he needs a 120 HP regen
> and a damage shield that makes up the difference by killing
> the mobs faster. A shaman doesn't need a 150 HP ward;
> he can get by with an 80 HP ward and a slow to make up
> the difference. Balance the power costs and you end up
> with a game where a group doesn't NEED any one class;
> they all work EFFECTIVELY as well.
>
> The bottom line is they BALANCED the healing ability.
> It LOOKS like they're all the same -- but they're not,
> they're different.
>
>> That's certainly undesirable. However, they may have gone
>> to the other extreme with EQ2 - making sure class doesn't
>> matter.
>
> Does it matter? Should it? If it does -- you are going to
> create "super" classes IMO.
>
> Ultimately a druid is a priest -- and a cleric is a priest -- and
> a shaman is a priest. They may all work differently and
> bring different things to the group, but they'll all be able to
> do their primary role -- healing. They'll accomplish that
> by doing things like reducing damage (slows) or increasing
> damage (damage shields & DoTs or nukes) or increasing
> HPs (buffs) -- or better, by some combination of all of them
> so no one class is much better solo. But it's all the same
> thing -- they can keep a group alive. What else would you
> want?

All I know is I have never considered playing any other game that
offered only the four primary classes. I just don't like it dilluted to
that degree. I just wonder if the individual classes post-20 will
distance themselves enough from each other within their respective
archetype for my tastes. Time will tell, I suppose. I hope you're right.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Wolfie" <dbgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:nTAEd.214660$Oc.194317
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> Say a cleric gets a 150 HP heal. A druid doesn't NEED a
> 150 HP regen to be as effective -- he needs a 120 HP regen
> and a damage shield that makes up the difference by killing
> the mobs faster. A shaman doesn't need a 150 HP ward;
> he can get by with an 80 HP ward and a slow to make up
> the difference. Balance the power costs and you end up
> with a game where a group doesn't NEED any one class;
> they all work EFFECTIVELY as well.
>
> The bottom line is they BALANCED the healing ability.
> It LOOKS like they're all the same -- but they're not,
> they're different.
>

One other thing. That seems to ensure that there is one best way to play
each of the priest classes. That would be the easiest way to balance them,
no doubt.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin

 

[Wolfie]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Rumbledor wrote:

> One other thing. That seems to ensure that there is one best way to
> play each of the priest classes. That would be the easiest way to
> balance them, no doubt.

True enough, but where isn't that true?

As a guess, any fury/warden using his instant heals and not
his regens without damage shields would be kicked out of
groups pretty quickly. Whether he has power to also
cast nukes/DoTs and whether it's better to save the power
for heals as compared to killing the mob(s) faster is up
to the player, same as always.

After a certain point, any class -- EQ or EQ2 -- that
doesn't play in a *semi*-optimal way will be shunned.
Yes, there will be an "optimum" way to play your class
(based on challenging encounters anyway) when "your
best" matters. I'm not sure how you avoid it.

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <yGAEd.189956$8G4.106785@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
dbgbdwolf@gte.net says...
> 42 wrote:
>
> >> AFAIK there's no "magical" class
> >> that people won't fight without -- and that's as it
> >> should be.
> >
> > In general yes, in particular encounters: No.
>
> > ie There should be encounters that do favour a particular class over
> > all others. And such encounters should exist and be relevant for each
> > class.
>
> No one said they didn't exist. I'm sure there are some
> mobs which are trivial to a tank/healer/four DPS group
> but tough for a tank/healer/four caster group -- and
> vice versa.

No has said they existed. You are assuming a lot to assume they do.

Moreover, I didn't say four casters rounding out your group vs four
melees rounding out your group I said - do you ever benefit greatly from
having a druid?

> I guess we'll have to disagree whether ANY
> mob should REQUIRE a particular class -- unless that
> mob is triggered by a quest for that class.

No, because I've never stipulated an encounter should -require- a class,
just benefit greatly. (e.g. encounters that a 6 man group could take
barely, but a 3 man group could do if it has class X)
>
> >> A druid LFG should be able to heal
> >> for a group as well as a cleric; likewise, a cleric
> >> should be able to solo as well as a druid. And so
> >> on and so on.
> >
> > Not much to make druids feel special in that model.
>
> Well, it's a simplification. Druids do NOT *heal* as
> well as clerics, for instance. But they also bring things
> like damage shields to the group (for an increase in
> DPS) clerics don't. Shaman bring buffs and debuffs
> with small heals and big wards. And so on...

> The point is a group depends on a *priest* -- and
> changes their tactics based on which *type* of
> priest they get. A tank doesn't care he's not
> getting damage, for instance, with a shaman as
> priest or getting big heals from a cleric or getting
> regen from a druid -- it's all good.

That doesn't amount to a change of *tactics* that's just an irrelevant
absctract difference. Healing the tank 200 hits, vs preventing 200 hits,
vs regenning 200 hits is equivalent. There's *no* tactical difference!

>
> > But EQ2s genericness was the wrong way to fix the problem.
>
> I disagree they're generic -- there's a major difference in
> getting regen vs a heal vs a ward.

How do you figure? Regen and Ward you cast before the damage is taken,
heal you cast after. Other than that the net worth is the same.

> That's even more true
> when you bring in the "side" issues -- increased damage,
> debuffs, HP/AC buffs, whatever -- each class brings to
> a group.

Different, but not meaninfully so.

> > Giving the
> > alt healers rez was a good move, but then they failed to preserve
> > their uniqueness -- the differences are just tactical flavour -- you
> > never really need a druid, or even prefer one, any healer-class will
> > fill the healer-slot in any/every situation.
>
> Again, a lot depends on mobs your fighting. A druid
> might be *better* in some circumstances than other
> priests (and the same is true of other classes.)

Example?
>
> > But if you can still take the mobs equally effectively with any
> > reasonable group composition these 'tactical differences' are largely
> > irrelevant.
>
> C'mon -- "tactical differences" are what make the game fun.

"C'mon" is right: the "healer heals while the tank tanks...", is exactly
ONE tactic. The fact that healers heal a little differently, and tanks
tank a little differently doesn't change up the tactic. Tactical
differences only come into play when you choose between different ones.

If you are fighting gating/chealing midgame mobs the presence of stuns
can make a significant difference. A Pali is an order of magnitude more
effective than a shadowknight, especially if the rest of the group is a
shm, drui, & rogue.

 

[Wolfie]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 wrote:

>> No one said they didn't exist. I'm sure there are some
>> mobs which are trivial to a tank/healer/four DPS group
>> but tough for a tank/healer/four caster group -- and
>> vice versa.
>
> No has said they existed. You are assuming a lot to assume they do.

Well, it'd be rather silly in incorporate resists into a game
(on mobs, not just players) and then not use them. There
are mobs with resists in the game -- and mobs with more
HPs -- than other mobs of the same level. As it scales,
you get mobs harder for some groups than for others.

> I said - do you ever benefit greatly from having a druid?

Yes -- if you lack good crowd control, for instance, a
druid's damage shield (and other debuffs/effects) make
them more useful than a cleric or shaman in the same
situation. And other times for other healers.

But that's a "okay, we can take these reasonably well"
with a druid vs "these will be real tough" with a shaman
situation, not a "/ooc group looking for druid ONLY"
situation

> No, because I've never stipulated an encounter should -require- a
> class, just benefit greatly. (e.g. encounters that a 6 man group
> could take barely, but a 3 man group could do if it has class X)


And -- with the linked encounters -- they exist.

> That doesn't amount to a change of *tactics* that's just an irrelevant
> absctract difference. Healing the tank 200 hits, vs preventing 200
> hits, vs regenning 200 hits is equivalent. There's *no* tactical
> difference!


Of course it is. You don't think needing someone to provide
crowd control is different than not wanting someone to provide
crowd control?

> How do you figure? Regen and Ward you cast before the damage
> is taken, heal you cast after. Other than that the net worth is the same.

Ward, before; regen, early, heal, late. It's different.
And the rest of the tactics for healing vary as well.

>> That's even more true
>> when you bring in the "side" issues -- increased damage,
>> debuffs, HP/AC buffs, whatever -- each class brings to
>> a group.
>
> Different, but not meaninfully so.

Slows aren't "meaningful?" Damage shields combined with
debuffs to provide an aggro-less AoE aren't "meaningful?"
There's tons of effective differences...

> Example?


Druids have a variety of low-aggro heals combined
with aggro-less AoEs. They're better at mobs you're
going to take en masse than the other priests. Shaman
are better - with slow - against the single big mob. And
so on.

> If you are fighting gating/chealing midgame mobs the presence of stuns
> can make a significant difference. A Pali is an order of magnitude
> more effective than a shadowknight, especially if the rest of the
> group is a shm, drui, & rogue.

The differences in EQ2 -- at least to the point I've played -- are
more subtle (gating mobs are a type EQ doesn't have before 50
AFAIK) but still there.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Wolfie" <dbgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:KbSEd.231408$6w6.127738
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> 42 wrote:
> Slows aren't "meaningful?" Damage shields combined with
> debuffs to provide an aggro-less AoE aren't "meaningful?"
> There's tons of effective differences...

At my level, the slow is not terribly meaningful in my experience.

>
>> Example?
>
> Druids have a variety of low-aggro heals combined
> with aggro-less AoEs. They're better at mobs you're
> going to take en masse than the other priests. Shaman
> are better - with slow - against the single big mob. And
> so on.
>

With group heals and group wards, I find, as a shaman, that multiple mob
groups are not realy much of an issue. I have run into a couple of
encounters where having CC is pretty crucial, I have not run into any
where one priest class was noticably better than another as of yet.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 69 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 21 Dwarven Mystic, 19 Scholar

 

[Wolfie]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 wrote:

> What is a cleric's role? To heal? Druids and Shaman do that too, and
> just as well.. to heal is the role of all priests... what is a CLERICS
> unique role? Nothing. They have some unique flavour, but it really has
> no relevance to the game.

Right -- just like they don't in EQ until clerics get CHeal at
39. Even after that, a group with a shaman can still go
pretty much everywhere. Druids were/are a bit weaker
but lots of groups survived with druid healers.

> EQ1 has a dozen+ classes, and half a dozen or so different 'roles'.
> EQ2 has 4 roles, and 4 classes, 1 class for each (with some
> flavouring). Its disappointing.

Again, they're not really different. What they did was balance
the classes, nothing more.

To make your point, tell us a place in EQ where you HAD
to have a ranger. Or a mage. Or a cleric, for that matter,
to *XP.*

 

[Wolfie]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 wrote:

> But never to the point where the difference is *important*. Its just
> there, an irrelevant bit of flavour, never something more.

Same as in EQ for almost all levels when XPing. Or
are you talking raids only? No one in EQ2 has the
type of raid experience people do in EQ yet...

> Why should every group with a representative of each of the 4 basic
> classes be able to take every single encounter they come accross??

Who said they can? I won't go near some mobs;
regens won't keep up. A shaman can. Now, if
I *NEED* to kill THAT mob, I'll get a group that
CAN kill THAT mob. I'll add DPS or CC or
something. But I do NOT need to talk
"a_helpful_cleric01" into helping...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, 42 wrote:

> I'd say its more precise to say that the classes have *no role* now.
> Their role is defined by their base: Priest, or Mage, etc.

Oh, now you are just being silly with semantics. Point is, my
*character* has a role, and her subclass provides her with a few extras,
some useful, some pointless. It doesn't really bother me that my role is
the same as the shaman or druids (though many have said that the druids
role is as the best secondary healer in the game, but they make OK
primaries too, so that isn't a firm niche). I can't wrap my brain around
why it should bother me that I share that role, to be honest, but that's
the fun of me not being the same person as you or anyone else, heh.

I guess the major difference is that I don't ask myself "Does my character
have a role?" but "Is my character fun?". One thinks about roles when
finding a place in the world matters, whether in groups, guilds, or their
own heads. But since I duo comfortably and have had many guild invites
and plenty of group invites without even being LFG...it doesn't seem I
need to worry about it.

And yes, I find it fun being a templar. My heals are unlike any heal we
saw in EQ-L. My debuffs are actually effective. My plate armor means
more than it did on EQ-L clerics and from all reports, it sets temps/inqs
above the shaman and druid insofar as survivability is concerned. My
melee and nukes are, well, a bit like henpecks, but you can't expect the
world. Oh, and I can make people swim faster, which I find excessively
cool for some odd reason.

<tangent>
Mind you, templars have THE dumbest flavor spells in the world. No,
seriously. We make spell effects appear around someone but there's no
spell (that's a "blessing"...and gee, i always thought buffs were
blessings ). We can Detect Evil, but, um, so can anyone who knows the
command /who evil %t. I can make a macro for that and save 2g! Our 45th
level high elf lacky is pretty cool, but it'll take a while to get there.
</tangent>

Why am I saying all this? I don't expect to convince you 42, obviously.
But there might be folks reading this and I figure it's worth hearing my
perspective as well.


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Jerelyn Foxeye -- http://www.foxeye-art.com

On Antonia Bayle (EQ):
[29 Iksar Templar] Viizanafyaeth Newleaf
[10 High Elf Brawler] Foxeye

On Order (Horizons):
[10 Monk/Druid Saris] Foxeye

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Wolfie" <dbgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:B4VEd.231620$6w6.2281
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> 42 wrote:
>
>> What is a cleric's role? To heal? Druids and Shaman do that too, and
>> just as well.. to heal is the role of all priests... what is a CLERICS
>> unique role? Nothing. They have some unique flavour, but it really has
>> no relevance to the game.
>
> Right -- just like they don't in EQ until clerics get CHeal at
> 39. Even after that, a group with a shaman can still go
> pretty much everywhere. Druids were/are a bit weaker
> but lots of groups survived with druid healers.

Not entirely true, clerics get the heal spells earlier than druids and
shaman, and even pre level 39, are better suited to the role of primary
healer. I remember many times, particularly when I was within one or two
levels of getting my next heal spell, when I just could not function as
the primary healer in a good xp group, at least not without lots of
downtime.

>
>> EQ1 has a dozen+ classes, and half a dozen or so different 'roles'.
>> EQ2 has 4 roles, and 4 classes, 1 class for each (with some
>> flavouring). Its disappointing.
>
> Again, they're not really different. What they did was balance
> the classes, nothing more.
>
> To make your point, tell us a place in EQ where you HAD
> to have a ranger. Or a mage. Or a cleric, for that matter,
> to *XP.*
>

Back in the day, I remember many times when I tried to fill the role of
primary healer (see above), and found that I just did not have good
enough heals to do the job well. I still find, at level 69, that if I am
xping in fire, I cannot work effectively as the primary healer, my heals
are just not big enough to keep up with a partially slowed mobs damage
output. There certainly are places I can xp in a group as the main
healer, but, there are also ones where I cannot. A druid OTOH, can
function in those places as the main healer, assuming, as with a cleric,
there is some type of slower in the group. Perhaps when I get my last
one or two missing heal spells that will change, I don't know, I don't
have them yet, and don't see it as being likely I will anytime real soon.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 69 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 21 Dwarven Mystic, 19 Scholar

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Foxeye Vaeltaja <foxeye@EEKSPAM.com> wrote in
newsine.LNX.4.58.0501111036350.30125@bolt.sonic.net:

>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, 42 wrote:
>
>> I'd say its more precise to say that the classes have *no role* now.
>> Their role is defined by their base: Priest, or Mage, etc.
>
> Oh, now you are just being silly with semantics. Point is, my
> *character* has a role, and her subclass provides her with a few
> extras, some useful, some pointless. It doesn't really bother me that
> my role is the same as the shaman or druids (though many have said
> that the druids role is as the best secondary healer in the game, but
> they make OK primaries too, so that isn't a firm niche). I can't wrap
> my brain around why it should bother me that I share that role, to be
> honest, but that's the fun of me not being the same person as you or
> anyone else, heh.
>
> I guess the major difference is that I don't ask myself "Does my
> character have a role?" but "Is my character fun?". One thinks about
> roles when finding a place in the world matters, whether in groups,
> guilds, or their own heads. But since I duo comfortably and have had
> many guild invites and plenty of group invites without even being
> LFG...it doesn't seem I need to worry about it.
>
> And yes, I find it fun being a templar. My heals are unlike any heal
> we saw in EQ-L. My debuffs are actually effective. My plate armor
> means more than it did on EQ-L clerics and from all reports, it sets
> temps/inqs above the shaman and druid insofar as survivability is
> concerned. My melee and nukes are, well, a bit like henpecks, but you
> can't expect the world. Oh, and I can make people swim faster,
> which I find excessively cool for some odd reason.
>
> <tangent>
> Mind you, templars have THE dumbest flavor spells in the world. No,
> seriously. We make spell effects appear around someone but there's no
> spell (that's a "blessing"...and gee, i always thought buffs were
> blessings ). We can Detect Evil, but, um, so can anyone who knows
> the command /who evil %t. I can make a macro for that and save 2g!
> Our 45th level high elf lacky is pretty cool, but it'll take a while
> to get there. </tangent>
>
> Why am I saying all this? I don't expect to convince you 42,
> obviously. But there might be folks reading this and I figure it's
> worth hearing my perspective as well.

I, for one, appreciate your taking the time. This is the sort of insight
I was hoping to hear.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Pine.LNX.4.58.0501111036350.30125@bolt.sonic.net>,
foxeye@EEKSPAM.com says...
>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, 42 wrote:
>
> > I'd say its more precise to say that the classes have *no role* now.
> > Their role is defined by their base: Priest, or Mage, etc.
>
> Oh, now you are just being silly with semantics.

Yeah. Definately semantics. (Not sure if I'll concede 'silly' though)

> Point is, my
> *character* has a role, and her subclass provides her with a few extras,
> some useful, some pointless. It doesn't really bother me that my role is
> the same as the shaman or druids (though many have said that the druids
> role is as the best secondary healer in the game, but they make OK
> primaries too, so that isn't a firm niche). I can't wrap my brain around
> why it should bother me that I share that role, to be honest, but that's
> the fun of me not being the same person as you or anyone else, heh.
>
> I guess the major difference is that I don't ask myself "Does my character
> have a role?" but "Is my character fun?". One thinks about roles when
> finding a place in the world matters, whether in groups, guilds, or their
> own heads. But since I duo comfortably and have had many guild invites
> and plenty of group invites without even being LFG...it doesn't seem I
> need to worry about it.
>
> And yes, I find it fun being a templar. My heals are unlike any heal we
> saw in EQ-L. My debuffs are actually effective. My plate armor means
> more than it did on EQ-L clerics and from all reports, it sets temps/inqs
> above the shaman and druid insofar as survivability is concerned. My
> melee and nukes are, well, a bit like henpecks, but you can't expect the
> world. Oh, and I can make people swim faster, which I find excessively
> cool for some odd reason.
>
> <tangent>
> Mind you, templars have THE dumbest flavor spells in the world. No,
> seriously. We make spell effects appear around someone but there's no
> spell (that's a "blessing"...and gee, i always thought buffs were
> blessings ). We can Detect Evil, but, um, so can anyone who knows the
> command /who evil %t. I can make a macro for that and save 2g! Our 45th
> level high elf lacky is pretty cool, but it'll take a while to get there.
> </tangent>
>
> Why am I saying all this? I don't expect to convince you 42, obviously.
> But there might be folks reading this and I figure it's worth hearing my
> perspective as well.

I duuno. I think you're comments on finding the class fun are certainly
relevant. If EQ2 succeeds with its forumula of 'being fun'. That's a
good thing. From a practical standpoint that's all it needs.

From a more theoretical perspective I'm still dispointed that classes
are not more uniquely 'able' then others. The different utility that
tanks bring to EQ1 uniquely enables them to engage various mob types...
in a dense goblin dungeon with sowed opponents, snare for example is
crucial... shadowknights aren't the only one that can snare, they aren't
even the best at it... but -someone- has to be able to, and if you swap
the tank with another tank class your group might not be functional
anymore, in that dungeon. I like that.

I don't mind that rangers, druids, necros, and berserkers also have
snare. I would be disappointed if warriors and paladins did though,
because that makes me completely interchangeable with any other tank.
You see the difference?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:35:00 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrotCRIVE_E

>Why should every group with a representative of each of the 4 basic
>classes be able to take every single encounter they come accross??

Uhm....why SHOULDN'T they?

Seriously.

A group of 6 which is balanced -- healers, tanks, and damage dealers
-- should be able to take any ecnounter with an appropriate con,
provided the players have appropriate levels of skill.

I would consider it exceptionally poor game design to find an
encounter which 'required' a paladin, or a fury, or an illusionist.

Such things make sense for solo quests for each class, which would be
very cool, but for normal, group, encounters, the idea you need a
specific subclass, not simply a well-balanced, well-played, group,
strikes me as bollocks.

(If I ever ran a D&D game where a partcular monster could only be
defeated if one of the PCs ran a Bard (and there wasn't one in the
party already), I'd be forced to eat my screen....)
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c4e32b4641404eb989997@shawnews...
> In article <ZsKdnafb-Y80wHncRVn-pg@adelphia.com>,
> davian@nospammindspring.com says...
> xp without the ranger pulling with track.
> > >
> >
> > Name one.
>
> Stonebrunt at a couple level ranges has a lot of mobs to kill, but they
> can be difficult to find quickly enough without a tracker, and are mixed
> with deep reds. You don't need a tracker to play there, but if you want
> to always have a mob inc, you need one. And if you don't have a tracker,
> you can go to a zillion other places and xp. (Hell even with a tracker
> you can go to better places for xp... but maximizing xp/hour really
> shouldn't be the goal.)
>

Heh.

..
>
> > > Cleric. Your kidding right. Take your group *anywhere* they are likely
> > > to die a couple times (like a low 50s group to Howling Stones or Acrylia
> > > Caverns), and a cleric is indispensible if you want to walk away from
> > > the evening with more xp than you started with.
> > >
> >
> > We went everywhere and had a cleric around maybe 10 percent of the time.
> > Very much including HS and Chardok and the like.
>
> I beleive you. But then I doubt you wiped as much. And predict the
> reason you didn't wipe as much is because you didn't push the limit as
> much.


Nope. We didn't wipe as much because we had a druid along who could evac
when necessary, not because we didn't push our limits. In our day we went
places and killed mobs that were deemed impossible for a single group.


--
Davian - Wood Elf Warrior on Guk
Talynne - Half Elf Rogue on Guk
Dearic - Dwarven Shaman on Guk

 

[Wolfie]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 wrote:

> In EQ2, so far at least, the priest classes
> each have its own tools to make up for its own shortcomings... at
> least so far it seems to have worked out like that.

"So far" being what level?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <99a9u01hqkf9ai2ivj31koir3npt75hhhb@4ax.com>,
Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>I would consider it exceptionally poor game design to find an
>encounter which 'required' a paladin, or a fury, or an illusionist.

*I* would like to see that kind of thing. Why shouldn't there
be situations where only a certain class's unique skills will provide
a solution?