Too many classes divvying up the same functions?

[Paul Botts]

I wonder if the game design hasn't gotten out of class balance in this
sense, that there are now more classes than can be really all given unique
functions or combinations of functions for grouping?

Assembling a successful EQ group calls for a certain number of different
functions. The exact balance or mix depends on whether you are exp grinding,
LDoN adventuring, doing certain quests, doing the planes, what have you. But
broadly there are about these functions you look for and try to balance in
building a group:

DPS
healing
crowd control
tanking
single-pulling
mana buffage
melee buffage (includes hasting and also HP buffing)
tracking
debuffing/reducing mob's effectiveness (includes slowing)
rezzing
corpse recovery from bad death spots
evacuation
group transport (includes sowing)
miscellaneous trap-solving, curse removal, etc.

I've probably forgotten one or two things, and clearly that list is not
created equal -- the first four items might be considered the "biggies"
around which we just fill in other capabilities for a group. And some of
those capabilities are things we seek outside the group as need be (somebody
logs their cleric to come do rezzes, etc.).

But regardless of the details, the overall point is that the functions list
hasn't fundamentally changed while the list of classes has grown. This leads
to things like giving monks lull because monks have come to be seen as just
a DPS class and groups now have plenty of other ways to get comparable DPS.
Or giving druids and shamans virtual CHeal. And other examples. All sour
grapes aside, this is in fact a gradual steady movement towards the day when
all classes are more or less the same in practice. Like they already are for
the first 10 levels.

The game designers have to stay atop of class balance and I am overall very
impressed with their efforts in that regard. But they need a new tool or
else we will one day realize that a rogue and an enchanter have become
basically the same class with different gear. The new melee system incoming
creates a new flavor of DPS (melee burst), but its still the DPS function
for groups.

Maybe what the game needs is some true new function that groups strongly
want -- then a class or two whose uniqueness has been seriously eroded (like
monks) could be made into the best sources of that function.

I dunno what this imaginary function is. Perhaps there are ideas that I've
just not come across. I thought of summoning mobs (meaning not creating one
fresh but summoning mobs like they sometimes summon us, involuntary
transport to the caster's clutches). But I guess really that's just another
way to pull so it doesn't actually add a new function for groups to want.

Er....flying, maybe? So what would be the need for that capability....well I
guess, airborne mobs! Hmm, that's got all sorts of balance implications
doesn't it, and software ones too....How about tradeskilling-in-the-field,
that is, groups benefitting strongly from somebody being able to smith or
sew or something at a place or under a time limit that the group comes up
against as part of adventures? and/or in non-LDoN zones while under pressure
from impending repops? The group has fought its way to the magical
fountain...."you gotta get that potion made, we're all LOM and the next wave
pops in about 3 minutes!!!" "Working on it...."

Ah, there are probably better ideas. Anyway it feels to me like EQ needs
_something_ new along that particular axis of the game design.


--
=====
Baron Haabbes Ticklemaabbes, 61 vah shir Beastlord,
Saryrn server. paulbotts(at)sbcglobal.netnospam

[CharmedFan]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:09:01 -0600, "Paul Botts"

Post by Paul Botts
I wonder if the game design hasn't gotten out of class balance in this
sense, that there are now more classes than can be really all given unique
functions or combinations of functions for grouping?

I was reading a thread about monks getting lull.. So, while I dont
feel the wish to shout hey you why should you get lull.. As a bard,
one of the things people like about bards is we generally do good
pulling, soothing the ones we dont want, pulling the one we do, and
mezzing an odd add that felt like coming to the party.

I feel a great sense of everyone ending up with some of everything..
Sure, why not, the point is we should be different. Bards are not here
to be the main tank, or the cleric, the cleric is not a tank, the tank
is not a cleric.

I do however feel warriors were being mighty left behind after all
they were the meat shield, but Im not so convinced for some of the
other changes underway.. Well, its not working much at all at the mo,
so, I suppose until it does, no one really knows.

[Kobe008]

I feel each class should have at least 1 thing no other class has. Are there
any classes right now that have one ability that no other class has? You are
correct when you say soon a rogue and an enchanter will be about the same.
They need to make Enchanters the only class that can Mez. Rangers the only
class that can Track. Warriors the only class that can Taunt. Shamans the
only class that can Slow. Clerics the only class that can heal (ok, that may
be going too far)

Post by Paul Botts
I wonder if the game design hasn't gotten out of class balance in this
sense, that there are now more classes than can be really all given unique
functions or combinations of functions for grouping?
Assembling a successful EQ group calls for a certain number of different
functions. The exact balance or mix depends on whether you are exp grinding,
LDoN adventuring, doing certain quests, doing the planes, what have you. But
broadly there are about these functions you look for and try to balance in
DPS
healing
crowd control
tanking
single-pulling
mana buffage
melee buffage (includes hasting and also HP buffing)
tracking
debuffing/reducing mob's effectiveness (includes slowing)
rezzing
corpse recovery from bad death spots
evacuation
group transport (includes sowing)
miscellaneous trap-solving, curse removal, etc.
I've probably forgotten one or two things, and clearly that list is not
created equal -- the first four items might be considered the "biggies"
around which we just fill in other capabilities for a group. And some of
those capabilities are things we seek outside the group as need be (somebody
logs their cleric to come do rezzes, etc.).
But regardless of the details, the overall point is that the functions list
hasn't fundamentally changed while the list of classes has grown. This leads
to things like giving monks lull because monks have come to be seen as just
a DPS class and groups now have plenty of other ways to get comparable DPS.
Or giving druids and shamans virtual CHeal. And other examples. All sour
grapes aside, this is in fact a gradual steady movement towards the day when
all classes are more or less the same in practice. Like they already are for
the first 10 levels.
The game designers have to stay atop of class balance and I am overall very
impressed with their efforts in that regard. But they need a new tool or
else we will one day realize that a rogue and an enchanter have become
basically the same class with different gear. The new melee system incoming
creates a new flavor of DPS (melee burst), but its still the DPS function
for groups.
Maybe what the game needs is some true new function that groups strongly
want -- then a class or two whose uniqueness has been seriously eroded (like
monks) could be made into the best sources of that function.
I dunno what this imaginary function is. Perhaps there are ideas that I've
just not come across. I thought of summoning mobs (meaning not creating one
fresh but summoning mobs like they sometimes summon us, involuntary
transport to the caster's clutches). But I guess really that's just another
way to pull so it doesn't actually add a new function for groups to want.
Er....flying, maybe? So what would be the need for that capability....well I
guess, airborne mobs! Hmm, that's got all sorts of balance implications
doesn't it, and software ones too....How about tradeskilling-in-the-field,
that is, groups benefitting strongly from somebody being able to smith or
sew or something at a place or under a time limit that the group comes up
against as part of adventures? and/or in non-LDoN zones while under pressure
from impending repops? The group has fought its way to the magical
fountain...."you gotta get that potion made, we're all LOM and the next wave
pops in about 3 minutes!!!" "Working on it...."
Ah, there are probably better ideas. Anyway it feels to me like EQ needs
_something_ new along that particular axis of the game design.

[Graeme Faelban]

Post by Kobe008
I feel each class should have at least 1 thing no other class has.
Are there any classes right now that have one ability that no other
class has? You are correct when you say soon a rogue and an enchanter
will be about the same. They need to make Enchanters the only class
that can Mez. Rangers the only class that can Track. Warriors the
only class that can Taunt. Shamans the only class that can Slow.
Clerics the only class that can heal (ok, that may be going too far)

If they did that, you might find that groupsize has to grow, as you won't
be able to get the functionality you need from just 6 people. I'd agree
that each class should have something that they are clearly best at, but,
not that they should be the only class that can do it.

[Paul Botts]

Post by Graeme Faelban
If they did that, you might find that groupsize has to grow, as you won't
be able to get the functionality you need from just 6 people.

Which would be a loss, because 5 or 6 people seems to be about the "sweet
spot" of group size in terms of gaming experience. Balancing social variety
with managing personalities, balancing the size of the recruitment chore
with the fun of working with people, etc. If groups get any bigger then a
lot of dynamics of grouping will change a lot, some of them (I suspect) for
the worse. Group size right now EQ works, so they shouldn't mess with it.

Post by Graeme Faelban
I'd agree
that each class should have something that they are clearly best at, but,
not that they should be the only class that can do it.

Yes, exactly. So filling a group becomes about balancing and adjusting
tactics to what's on hand, rather than a search for the one class that can
do X. "OK, we can get by with the druid as healer because we've got great CC
here, provided we make sure that...." That's fun, and works better in EQ
than any of its competitors. Certainly don't want to break it.

LDoN has added a new practical category for classes to be best at for group
purposes, which is "versatility." I don't know if that was intended in the
design of the expansion, but its a good outcome which balances the premium
that raiding places on the specialist classes.

[JFlexer]

Post by Paul Botts

Post by Graeme Faelban
If they did that, you might find that groupsize has to grow, as you won't
be able to get the functionality you need from just 6 people.

Which would be a loss, because 5 or 6 people seems to be about the "sweet
spot" of group size in terms of gaming experience. Balancing social variety
with managing personalities, balancing the size of the recruitment chore
with the fun of working with people, etc. If groups get any bigger then a
lot of dynamics of grouping will change a lot, some of them (I suspect) for
the worse. Group size right now EQ works, so they shouldn't mess with it.

Post by Graeme Faelban
I'd agree
that each class should have something that they are clearly best at, but,
not that they should be the only class that can do it.

Yes, exactly. So filling a group becomes about balancing and adjusting
tactics to what's on hand, rather than a search for the one class that can
do X. "OK, we can get by with the druid as healer because we've got great CC
here, provided we make sure that...." That's fun, and works better in EQ
than any of its competitors. Certainly don't want to break it.

I also agree that 5-6 is ideal size for group - however...

Post by Paul Botts
LDoN has added a new practical category for classes to be best at for group
purposes, which is "versatility." I don't know if that was intended in the
design of the expansion, but its a good outcome which balances the premium
that raiding places on the specialist classes.

I would argue that LDoN has actually hindered the grouping experience. So
many players will not even consider grouping unless the group meets a
specific make-up: 1 cleric, 1 chanter, 1 Puller, 1 tank, and then the other
2 classes are negotiable - prob another dps and a caster.

I've never been able to get a group of melee char's to try an adv... "We
gotta have a healer" and I've seen many cases of casters who won't go into
dungeon without a crack dealer of some sort...

fortunately, Pick-up groups haven't fallen to such rigidity yet...

Jeffers
46 Warrior, The Rathe
(who loves his friendly, neighborhood cleric!)

[Graefaxe]

"JFlexer" <***@fbuster.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@enews3.newsguy.com...

:
: I would argue that LDoN has actually hindered the grouping experience. So
: many players will not even consider grouping unless the group meets a
: specific make-up: 1 cleric, 1 chanter, 1 Puller, 1 tank, and then the
other
: 2 classes are negotiable - prob another dps and a caster.
:

YOu should have seen the group I had the other day. 2 Warr, Paladin, Rogue,
Monk and me, a Shaman. No mezz, no good healer. We kicked our way through
the dungeon and won (we did not take an assassinate or a rescue)

: I've never been able to get a group of melee char's to try an adv... "We
: gotta have a healer" and I've seen many cases of casters who won't go
into
: dungeon without a crack dealer of some sort...
:
: fortunately, Pick-up groups haven't fallen to such rigidity yet...

I don't know, most conversations revolve around finding a cleric, a shaman
or an enchanter. I just say, get someone and let's go. EXP is king.
Won/Lost percentage is nothing but image.

[JFlexer]

Post by Graefaxe
: I would argue that LDoN has actually hindered the grouping experience.

So

Post by Graefaxe
: many players will not even consider grouping unless the group meets a
: specific make-up: 1 cleric, 1 chanter, 1 Puller, 1 tank, and then the
other
: 2 classes are negotiable - prob another dps and a caster.
YOu should have seen the group I had the other day. 2 Warr, Paladin, Rogue,
Monk and me, a Shaman. No mezz, no good healer. We kicked our way through
the dungeon and won (we did not take an assassinate or a rescue)
: I've never been able to get a group of melee char's to try an adv...

"We

Post by Graefaxe
: gotta have a healer" and I've seen many cases of casters who won't go
into
: dungeon without a crack dealer of some sort...
: fortunately, Pick-up groups haven't fallen to such rigidity yet...
I don't know, most conversations revolve around finding a cleric, a shaman
or an enchanter.

I mean, non-LDoN groups... I find these groups all the time, particularly
if there are only a couple hunting in the zone... may as well group and chat
while grinding XP... In the great divide, I routinely group with casters
who are there to get Kromif heads - they could care about the xp/loot - so
we make a nice balance - they med and protect... I slash and whack - we're
both happy...

If I'm in the mood to group - I'll group with nearly anyone who asks...

Post by Graefaxe
I just say, get someone and let's go. EXP is king.
Won/Lost percentage is nothing but image.

I agree. I do adventures for XP and loot...

I would also love to play a group where the express purpose would be too
open all chests and 'activate' all victims - just to see what happens! G!

Unfort

[Lief]

Post by Graefaxe
I don't know, most conversations revolve around finding a cleric, a shaman
or an enchanter. I just say, get someone and let's go. EXP is king.
Won/Lost percentage is nothing but image.

Looking at this through a shaman's eye's perhaps ?

[Graeme Faelban]

Post by JFlexer

Post by Paul Botts

Post by Graeme Faelban
If they did that, you might find that groupsize has to grow, as you
won't be able to get the functionality you need from just 6 people.

Which would be a loss, because 5 or 6 people seems to be about the
"sweet spot" of group size in terms of gaming experience. Balancing
social variety with managing personalities, balancing the size of the
recruitment chore with the fun of working with people, etc. If groups
get any bigger then a lot of dynamics of grouping will change a lot,
some of them (I suspect) for the worse. Group size right now EQ
works, so they shouldn't mess with it.

Post by Graeme Faelban
I'd agree
that each class should have something that they are clearly best
at, but, not that they should be the only class that can do it.

Yes, exactly. So filling a group becomes about balancing and
adjusting tactics to what's on hand, rather than a search for the one
class that can do X. "OK, we can get by with the druid as healer
because we've got great CC here, provided we make sure that...."
That's fun, and works better in EQ than any of its competitors.
Certainly don't want to break it.

I also agree that 5-6 is ideal size for group - however...

Post by Paul Botts
LDoN has added a new practical category for classes to be best at for
group purposes, which is "versatility." I don't know if that was
intended in the design of the expansion, but its a good outcome which
balances the premium that raiding places on the specialist classes.

I would argue that LDoN has actually hindered the grouping experience.
So many players will not even consider grouping unless the group
meets a specific make-up: 1 cleric, 1 chanter, 1 Puller, 1 tank, and
then the other 2 classes are negotiable - prob another dps and a
caster.
I've never been able to get a group of melee char's to try an adv...
"We gotta have a healer" and I've seen many cases of casters who
won't go into dungeon without a crack dealer of some sort...
fortunately, Pick-up groups haven't fallen to such rigidity yet...

I've gone in with a wide variety of groups, including a few times with
nothing but root for cc, and no lull, or even fd pullers.

[Paul Botts]

Post by JFlexer
I would argue that LDoN has actually hindered the grouping experience. So
many players will not even consider grouping unless the group meets a
specific make-up: 1 cleric, 1 chanter, 1 Puller, 1 tank, and then the other
2 classes are negotiable - prob another dps and a caster.

That was true for a while but its been changing, at least on Saryrn. In
recent weeks I've done pet-tank groups, groups without any mez/lull capacity
at all, all sorts of lineups....the other day I had a group where the only
melees were me and two rogues (we had the cleric pacify and I pulled with
slow, it worked okay and we got the win). On the one hand players have
gotten more familiar and hence comfortable with LDoN dungeons, and on the
other you don't have folks trying to protect perfect won-loss records like
during those first few weeks. There's also less tolerance now of spending
tons of time forming a group than when LDoN first rolled out.

Its often commented that LDoN adventuring "exposes" players who previously
"never really had to learn how to play their class." There's truth in
that -- I know I never felt the need to maintain a "never to be grouped with
again" list before LDoN. One nice side effect is players learning that
comfort with your groupmates is more important to your chances of success
than a perfect class lineup. I've learned this the hard way and I can see
that others have too. Hence I more often now end up in groups that have two
tanks and no mezzer, or two druids and no cleric, or whatever -- cause we're
better off grouping 6 people who we know can play and then figuring out how
to beat the dungeon with that particular lineup.

[the wharf rat]

Post by JFlexer
I've never been able to get a group of melee char's to try an adv... "We

The other night we had 2 paladins 2 warriors a chanter and a cleric
in Mistmoore. We kicked undead butt ;-)

[Lance Berg]

Post by the wharf rat

Post by JFlexer
I've never been able to get a group of melee char's to try an adv... "We

The other night we had 2 paladins 2 warriors a chanter and a cleric
in Mistmoore. We kicked undead butt ;-)

You had a slower, a CC, a healer, a tank, 2 DPS, and oh a second
warrior. Other than the second warrior, how is this at all a
non-standard group?

(well, only on an undead run would you count paladins as DPS, but still)

Splendid

[Lief]

Post by Lance Berg
You had a slower, a CC, a healer, a tank, 2 DPS, and oh a second
warrior. Other than the second warrior, how is this at all a
non-standard group?

Warriors do dps also...not as small amount as most people seem to make out,
either.

[Lance Berg]

Post by Lief

Post by Lance Berg
You had a slower, a CC, a healer, a tank, 2 DPS, and oh a second
warrior. Other than the second warrior, how is this at all a
non-standard group?

Warriors do dps also...not as small amount as most people seem to make out,
either.

Clerics do DPS also.

But rogues, rangers, monks, mages, necromancers, wizards do a good deal
=more= DPS, which is why they are the "DPS classes"

If you have a druid who isn't called on to be healer, he'll do more DPS
than a warrior.

If you have a cleric who isn't called on to be healer, he'll do more DPS
than a warrior (only at some levels, at other levels a cleric will never
outdamage a warrior.)

If you have an enchanter or bard who aren't called on to do CC, they'll
do more DPS than a warrior (assumes charmable mob handy.)

Against undead, a paladin may well outdamage a warrior.

Being able to outdamage shadowknights, shamans, and paladins does not
mean you are a "DPS Class".

Note that the above are assuming average gear; a warrior twinked out
with 41 haste and uber weaponry will be able to outdamage many of the
above classes if they are dawdling along in 22% haste gear and average
weaponry (melee) or without its equivalent in focus gear and FT gear
(casters)

Splendid One, 57 Gnomage, Firiona Vie

[Lance Berg]

Post by Lance Berg

Post by Lief

Post by Lance Berg
You had a slower, a CC, a healer, a tank, 2 DPS, and oh a second
warrior. Other than the second warrior, how is this at all a
non-standard group?

Warriors do dps also...not as small amount as most people seem to make out,
either.

Clerics do DPS also.
But rogues, rangers, monks, mages, necromancers, wizards do a good deal
=more= DPS, which is why they are the "DPS classes"

And beastlords. Knew I was forgetting someone.

Point being, swap out the warrior and get in one of almost any other
class instead and your group would do more damage.

Splendid

[Lief]

Post by Lance Berg
And beastlords. Knew I was forgetting someone.
Point being, swap out the warrior and get in one of almost any other
class instead and your group would do more damage.

Dont know why the debate, I agree :p My point was warriors are not the
dps'less class everyone seems to think they are.

That group would not of been HUGELY changed by switching out the warrior,
and even lose's the benefit of having another plate to step up and tank,
which is always a nice option to have :)

[Lance Berg]

Post by Lief

Post by Lance Berg
And beastlords. Knew I was forgetting someone.
Point being, swap out the warrior and get in one of almost any other
class instead and your group would do more damage.

Dont know why the debate, I agree :p My point was warriors are not the
dps'less class everyone seems to think they are.
That group would not of been HUGELY changed by switching out the warrior,
and even lose's the benefit of having another plate to step up and tank,
which is always a nice option to have :)

You've already got a warrior and two paladins, though, the odds of
needing a 4th plate tank are pretty small, especially considering that
your -other- two classes are chanter (crowd control) and cleric (odds of
serial tank death low)

Hugely, no, for that matter it wouldn't be hugely changed by dropping
the 6th man entirely. Warrior is about halfway between those two
options; a real "dps" class might double the warrior's damage output,
not having any 6th man at all would still only lose you one warrior's
worth of damage.

I'm just saying that the only "unorthodox" thing about that group,
considering that it was an undead rich environment where the paladins
could be counted as DPS classes, was the second warrior.

Splendid

[Lief]

Post by Lance Berg

Post by Lief
Warriors do dps also...not as small amount as most people seem to make out,
either.

Clerics do DPS also.

For about four levels :p Or vs undead...

Post by Lance Berg
But rogues, rangers, monks, mages, necromancers, wizards do a good deal
=more= DPS, which is why they are the "DPS classes"

With the current weapons available to warriors (2 handers), you would be
surprised how little difference there is between ranger / warrior melee (ie
swords etc, not bow...which some count as melee), if the warrior is not
tanking...they have better crits, and the same melee skills as a ranger
does. Rangers have inate atk bonus but this is offset by the warriors
improved crit chance.

Yes rangers get eq/am3, no, its not the 'hit attack twice mob is dead uber
skill of death' that people make it out too be.

LDoN isnt suited to archery (yes rangers get nukes....not great though,
resists/fizzles probably keep the nuking ranger at around the same level as
a non nuking ranger).

Post by Lance Berg
If you have a druid who isn't called on to be healer, he'll do more DPS
than a warrior.

Yes...druid's are pseudo dps so this isn't surprising.

Post by Lance Berg
If you have a cleric who isn't called on to be healer, he'll do more DPS
than a warrior (only at some levels, at other levels a cleric will never
outdamage a warrior.)

Yes..for four levels (56-60, proc swoosh hammer + nukes).

Post by Lance Berg
If you have an enchanter or bard who aren't called on to do CC, they'll
do more DPS than a warrior (assumes charmable mob handy.)

Or druid...or mage...but assuming not a raid charmed pets come with a
penalty (offset by increased kill rate).

CoD'd pet in bot is the most lethal player controlled damage I have yet
seen.

Post by Lance Berg
Against undead, a paladin may well outdamage a warrior.

Against undead (with SU3, he will definitley outdamage a warrior),
without...(using only undead procs), he will be close if using 2hs, but
lower weapon skills will mean it is around even / less than a warriors dps,
imo.

Post by Lance Berg
Being able to outdamage shadowknights, shamans, and paladins does not
mean you are a "DPS Class".

I never said they were a dps class, I said they didnt do as badly at dps as
some people make out.

Doubt a warrior would outdamage a shadowknight (2hs, +dot, +lifetap,
+nukes), again, SK do more damage than most people give them credit for (WoS
(waste of space) skelly does around 15fps, for example (highest SK pet))).

Post by Lance Berg
Note that the above are assuming average gear; a warrior twinked out
with 41 haste and uber weaponry will be able to outdamage many of the
above classes if they are dawdling along in 22% haste gear and average
weaponry (melee) or without its equivalent in focus gear and FT gear
(casters)

65 warrior full AA
65 ranger full AA

Equally equipped.

The warrior will do greater melee damage if not tanking.

Take it down a notch...

40 warrior
40 ranger

The warrior will do greater melee damage if not tanking (in fact, the ranger
is a better choice for tanking at this level, imo, his self + stackable DS
really do add to his dps).

Conclusion...warriors are not low on the dps table, the are not near the top
for sure, but give them some credit, they have crits, high atk, high weapon
skills, very good weapons 'available' to them.

Sure to make that group min/max, switch the warrior for a rogue for an extra
bit of dps, but then you lose the option of decent offtank if needed
(warriors have no utility huh? Who else is gonna offtank that as yet
unslowed add? :p). And you would still finish the ldon in the same time or
thereabouts.

Maybe I have just been spoiled by good warriors in my guild, but there
problems are not as bad as others, and they themselves make it out to be,
*IMO*.

P.S. I compare ranger/warrior alot, as I play a ranger and fight often with
a 65 warrior, his damage parses where HIGHER than I expected them to be in
comparision to mine (ME: cf3/eq/am3 vs HIM: all defensive AA)

The shadowknight I fight with often also surprised me with his dps....the
weapons you can get now (bazaar) are damn powerful, plus all the stuff I
mentioned before.

[Lance Berg]

Post by Lief

Post by Lance Berg

Post by Lief
Warriors do dps also...not as small amount as most people seem to make

out,

Post by Lance Berg

Post by Lief
either.

Clerics do DPS also.

For about four levels :p Or vs undead...

No, at ALL levels. Its just that, like warriors (at all levels), the
DPS they do is pretty lame compared to real DPS classes except in those
few limited cases.

Post by Lief

Post by Lance Berg
But rogues, rangers, monks, mages, necromancers, wizards do a good deal
=more= DPS, which is why they are the "DPS classes"

With the current weapons available to warriors (2 handers), you would be
surprised how little difference there is between ranger / warrior melee (ie
swords etc, not bow...which some count as melee), if the warrior is not
tanking...they have better crits, and the same melee skills as a ranger
does. Rangers have inate atk bonus but this is offset by the warriors
improved crit chance.
Yes rangers get eq/am3, no, its not the 'hit attack twice mob is dead uber
skill of death' that people make it out too be.
LDoN isnt suited to archery (yes rangers get nukes....not great though,
resists/fizzles probably keep the nuking ranger at around the same level as
a non nuking ranger).

Post by Lance Berg
If you have a druid who isn't called on to be healer, he'll do more DPS
than a warrior.

Yes...druid's are pseudo dps so this isn't surprising.

Post by Lance Berg
If you have a cleric who isn't called on to be healer, he'll do more DPS
than a warrior (only at some levels, at other levels a cleric will never
outdamage a warrior.)

Yes..for four levels (56-60, proc swoosh hammer + nukes).

and pet, which again is only useful from 54 to 60, by which point the
pet is starting to be unable land blows

Also at very low levels, where -any- class can do melee damage fairly
readily, and clerics get to stack nukes on top of damage. And in the
mid , where cleric melee isn't all that much worse than warrior melee,
given comperable weapons, and again, clerics who aren't called on to
heal can nuke.

Cleric nuking is often discounted, but its damage to mana ratio is
really quite decent, the problem is that the cast time and recast times
are long. This means that in killing One mob, they make lousy nukers,
unable to dump their whole mana bar before the mob dies. In an exp
group situation, though, where everyone is often limited by mana regen,
"burst" DPS doesn't matter, just efficiency, and there nuking clerics
may well surprise you. Get them a horse so

Post by Lief

Post by Lance Berg
If you have an enchanter or bard who aren't called on to do CC, they'll
do more DPS than a warrior (assumes charmable mob handy.)

Or druid...or mage...but assuming not a raid charmed pets come with a
penalty (offset by increased kill rate).

In full group the penalty doesn't amount to much, its only really an
issue when your damage output is significantly lower than that of the
pet; not each, but all together. And as you say, kill rate offsets
that, the more that charmed pet outdamages the group, the more he's
dramatically raising your kill rate. Plus, for loot or faction or LDoN
success, faster kill rate isn't offset by anything at all; the penalty,
such as it is, applies only to exp.

Mage and druid are already in the "outdamage a warrior" category,
although ones who can and will charm clearly do by an even larger margin.

Post by Lief
CoD'd pet in bot is the most lethal player controlled damage I have yet
seen.

Post by Lance Berg
Against undead, a paladin may well outdamage a warrior.

Against undead (with SU3, he will definitley outdamage a warrior),
without...(using only undead procs), he will be close if using 2hs, but
lower weapon skills will mean it is around even / less than a warriors dps,
imo.

Aye, thus the "may well" part; depending on the AA and such a warrior
might well outdamage the paladin even on undead.

Post by Lief

Post by Lance Berg
Being able to outdamage shadowknights, shamans, and paladins does not
mean you are a "DPS Class".

I never said they were a dps class, I said they didnt do as badly at dps as
some people make out.
Doubt a warrior would outdamage a shadowknight (2hs, +dot, +lifetap,
+nukes), again, SK do more damage than most people give them credit for (WoS
(waste of space) skelly does around 15fps, for example (highest SK pet))).

Post by Lance Berg
Note that the above are assuming average gear; a warrior twinked out
with 41 haste and uber weaponry will be able to outdamage many of the
above classes if they are dawdling along in 22% haste gear and average
weaponry (melee) or without its equivalent in focus gear and FT gear
(casters)

65 warrior full AA
65 ranger full AA
Equally equipped.
The warrior will do greater melee damage if not tanking.
Take it down a notch...
40 warrior
40 ranger
The warrior will do greater melee damage if not tanking (in fact, the ranger
is a better choice for tanking at this level, imo, his self + stackable DS
really do add to his dps).

If rangers don't outdamage warriors significantly, this is sad news for
ranger, who are normally given "DPS" slots in groups. Just as warriors
have lost their "Sponge" slot to paladins and SK's, if rangers aren't in
the same general level as rogues, mages, wizards, et al, you really have
to wonder why people would bring them along.

Post by Lief
Conclusion...warriors are not low on the dps table, the are not near the top
for sure, but give them some credit, they have crits, high atk, high weapon
skills, very good weapons 'available' to them.
Sure to make that group min/max, switch the warrior for a rogue for an extra
bit of dps, but then you lose the option of decent offtank if needed
(warriors have no utility huh? Who else is gonna offtank that as yet
unslowed add? :p). And you would still finish the ldon in the same time or
thereabouts.

Either of the two paladins, both of which are better suited to the job
anyway!

Post by Lief
Maybe I have just been spoiled by good warriors in my guild, but there
problems are not as bad as others, and they themselves make it out to be,
*IMO*.
P.S. I compare ranger/warrior alot, as I play a ranger and fight often with
a 65 warrior, his damage parses where HIGHER than I expected them to be in
comparision to mine (ME: cf3/eq/am3 vs HIM: all defensive AA)

I've been out of the high end game for a while now (and never really was
in the really high end, just 65 cleric in a guild that hadn't quite gone
Vex Thal), so perhaps itemization has changed the relative levels of
warrior versus other melee damage output. Back in the pre LOY days,
though, warriors seemed to do a lot less damage than even non EQ/AM rangers.

Post by Lief
The shadowknight I fight with often also surprised me with his dps....the
weapons you can get now (bazaar) are damn powerful, plus all the stuff I
mentioned before.

Sigh, I feel sooo out of the loop.

Its my -guess- that the "non DPS" classes do a lot more damage now
compared to what they once did, but that this should be balanced by DPS
classes likewise doing a lot more damage than they once did. But if
only some classes got boosted up by recent changes (and gradual
mudflation) then its entirely possible that a warrior who isn't standing
in front of a mob -is- a DPS class after all.

You wouldnt' know it by my earlier experience, nor by what "everyone"
seems to be saying even now.

Splendid One, 57 gnomage, Firiona Vie
Bergh Brelltender, 65 cleric, Morel Thule (on hiatus these past 7 months)

[Lance Berg]

Post by Lance Berg

Post by Lief

Post by Lance Berg
If you have a cleric who isn't called on to be healer, he'll do more DPS
than a warrior (only at some levels, at other levels a cleric will never
outdamage a warrior.)

Yes..for four levels (56-60, proc swoosh hammer + nukes).

and pet, which again is only useful from 54 to 60, by which point the
pet is starting to be unable land blows
Also at very low levels, where -any- class can do melee damage fairly
readily, and clerics get to stack nukes on top of damage. And in the
mid [40s, with KEI available], where cleric melee isn't all that much worse than warrior melee,
given comperable weapons, and again, clerics who aren't called on to
heal can nuke.

Bracketed section added. Hate hitting that post button before finishing
all my thoughts.

Post by Lance Berg
Cleric nuking is often discounted, but its damage to mana ratio is
really quite decent, the problem is that the cast time and recast times
are long. This means that in killing One mob, they make lousy nukers,
unable to dump their whole mana bar before the mob dies. In an exp
group situation, though, where everyone is often limited by mana regen,
"burst" DPS doesn't matter, just efficiency, and there nuking clerics
may well surprise you. Get them a horse so

their long cast times don't cost any med time, and comperable mana
regen, and clerics can do quite well on the damage per hour scale by
nuking at several different level breaks (shortly after getting their
next nuke, while other classes don't have their next higher efficiency
nuke yet)

Splendid

[Lief]

Post by Lance Berg
Also at very low levels, where -any- class can do melee damage fairly
readily, and clerics get to stack nukes on top of damage. And in the
mid , where cleric melee isn't all that much worse than warrior melee,
given comperable weapons, and again, clerics who aren't called on to
heal can nuke.

What are you calling the mid ? A warrior starts to outdamage every other
(non pure melee) class at level 15...they now have dual wield / double
attack.

A clerics melee is horrible compared to a warrior, only comparable up to
level 13, the warrior then pulls ahead....at around level 20ish, there is
little point in a cleric meleeing as the will do awful damage, better off
medding for a nuke.

When my brother read your above statement, he kinda laughed (he plays a
65cleric), he said clerics melee worse than EVERYONE apart from
shamans....he even said enchanters where above them, whether he meant that
or not, who knows.

The long cast time / refresh of nukes makes them bad damage dealers also,
over time a warrior will still do more damage.

I recall a parse from a time equipped cleric, who went 'all out dps' and
managed about 60dps average (which actually, isnt that bad, just horrible
compared to most / any other class including warriors).

[Aruvqan]

hm, i have gusted dps of up to 90 before, but i will load both judgement
and reckoning, and have my proccing 56 hammer. i was tanking with my
hubby on his shammy and his bl, so the bl, both pets and i tanked for my
shards in skyfire. brought up my offense, defense and 1hb to max for 56
and got me a number of aa points from the xp=)

having 2 nukes up with different casting/recast times seems to work
well. sort of a nuke, thwack a few times, nuke other spell, thwack a few
times, yaulpV and repeat.

not time equipped at all=\ wish i had better gear in some slots but i do
my best=)
margali

Post by Lief
I recall a parse from a time equipped cleric, who went 'all out dps' and
managed about 60dps average (which actually, isnt that bad, just horrible
compared to most / any other class including warriors).

[Lief]

warrior will do greater melee damage if not tanking (in fact, the ranger

Post by Lance Berg

Post by Lief
is a better choice for tanking at this level, imo, his self + stackable DS
really do add to his dps).

If rangers don't outdamage warriors significantly, this is sad news for
ranger, who are normally given "DPS" slots in groups. Just as warriors
have lost their "Sponge" slot to paladins and SK's, if rangers aren't in
the same general level as rogues, mages, wizards, et al, you really have
to wonder why people would bring them along.

Yes, I agree, it is very sad news for rangers, I would like to add that the
only happens at the end game, where archery is no longer viable as dps, and
pretty much EVERYONE is doing huge dps because of the damage of there
weapons.

Oh, we get spells :P I forgot :D I use snare, root, SoT, SoP, Eagle eye, and
two nukes...out of an entire spelll book thats kinda sad.

A shadowknights spell book, for example, has a much better range of useful
spells.

But that is a different topic entirely ;p

[John Muir]

Post by Lief

Post by Lance Berg
If rangers don't outdamage warriors significantly, this is sad news for
ranger, who are normally given "DPS" slots in groups. Just as warriors
have lost their "Sponge" slot to paladins and SK's, if rangers aren't in
the same general level as rogues, mages, wizards, et al, you really have
to wonder why people would bring them along.

Yes, I agree, it is very sad news for rangers, I would like to add that the
only happens at the end game, where archery is no longer viable as dps, and
pretty much EVERYONE is doing huge dps because of the damage of there
weapons.

I've seen those parses. The SK and Ranger look bad because the parses
were melee only - no spells and no self buffs.

[ME]

Post by Lance Berg

Post by Lief

Post by Lance Berg
You had a slower, a CC, a healer, a tank, 2 DPS, and oh a second
warrior. Other than the second warrior, how is this at all a
non-standard group?

Warriors do dps also...not as small amount as most people seem to
make out, either.

Clerics do DPS also.

<snip>

Post by Lance Berg
If you have an enchanter or bard who aren't called on to do CC,
they'll do more DPS than a warrior (assumes charmable mob handy.)

<snip>

I need to know if I have this right:

CC=Crowd Control?

_______

Miznit

_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Lief]

Post by ME
CC=Crowd Control?

Yes :) Also can be camp check :p

[John Gordon]

Post by ME
CC=Crowd Control?

Yes.

---
John Gordon "Your hat makes baby Brell cry."
***@panix.com -- James Grahame in alt.games.everquest

[Tim Smith]

Post by JFlexer
I've never been able to get a group of melee char's to try an adv... "We
gotta have a healer" and I've seen many cases of casters who won't go
into dungeon without a crack dealer of some sort...

That's too bad. It would be very interesting to see 6 Warriors group.

That's not as absurd as it sounds. Consider the case of 6 Warriors fighting
a melee mob. The Warriors are doing 6 times the damage of a solo Warrior,
so the mob goes down in 1/6th the time. This means the mob generates 1/6th
the damage it would against a solo Warrior.

If the 6 are taunting, so that the mob is spreading the damage equally among
the 6, each Warrior takes just 1/36th the damage they would have taken
soloing that mob.

So, starting from all Warriors full health, if they can find a mob that a
solo Warrior could get down to 97% before dying, the group of 6 could take
that mob.

If they limit themselves to mobs that a solo Warrior could get down to 94%,
the group of 6 could take those mobs on 1/2 health, and so with bandaging,
chain them with low downtime.

A 6 Warrior group in an area where most of the fights are against melee mobs
could actually be very effective.

[Bill Kuykendall]

Maybe even a little faster because if the warriors were dipping below half
health regularly, they would be getting crippling blows to speed things up
wouldn't they?

Post by Tim Smith

Post by JFlexer
I've never been able to get a group of melee char's to try an adv...

"We

Post by Tim Smith

Post by JFlexer
gotta have a healer" and I've seen many cases of casters who won't go
into dungeon without a crack dealer of some sort...

That's too bad. It would be very interesting to see 6 Warriors group.
That's not as absurd as it sounds. Consider the case of 6 Warriors fighting
a melee mob. The Warriors are doing 6 times the damage of a solo Warrior,
so the mob goes down in 1/6th the time. This means the mob generates 1/6th
the damage it would against a solo Warrior.
If the 6 are taunting, so that the mob is spreading the damage equally among
the 6, each Warrior takes just 1/36th the damage they would have taken
soloing that mob.
So, starting from all Warriors full health, if they can find a mob that a
solo Warrior could get down to 97% before dying, the group of 6 could take
that mob.
If they limit themselves to mobs that a solo Warrior could get down to 94%,
the group of 6 could take those mobs on 1/2 health, and so with bandaging,
chain them with low downtime.
A 6 Warrior group in an area where most of the fights are against melee mobs
could actually be very effective.
--
Evidence Eliminator is worthless. See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith

[Lance Berg]

Post by Tim Smith

Post by JFlexer
I've never been able to get a group of melee char's to try an adv... "We
gotta have a healer" and I've seen many cases of casters who won't go
into dungeon without a crack dealer of some sort...

That's too bad. It would be very interesting to see 6 Warriors group.
That's not as absurd as it sounds. Consider the case of 6 Warriors fighting
a melee mob. The Warriors are doing 6 times the damage of a solo Warrior,
so the mob goes down in 1/6th the time. This means the mob generates 1/6th
the damage it would against a solo Warrior.
If the 6 are taunting, so that the mob is spreading the damage equally among
the 6, each Warrior takes just 1/36th the damage they would have taken
soloing that mob.
So, starting from all Warriors full health, if they can find a mob that a
solo Warrior could get down to 97% before dying, the group of 6 could take
that mob.
If they limit themselves to mobs that a solo Warrior could get down to 94%,
the group of 6 could take those mobs on 1/2 health, and so with bandaging,
chain them with low downtime.
A 6 Warrior group in an area where most of the fights are against melee mobs
could actually be very effective.

The problem with this construct is that at low health, you'll no longer
be able to share the damage around; the mob will suddenly stick like
glue to the first warrior to dip below his "low hp aggro" threshold.
Once that warrior is dead, of course, you'll go back to being able to
share damage between the remaining 5, but if they were all taking damage
evenly, then very soon one of them will also get "low hp aggro",
particularly since your ratio dropped from 6 times a solo warrior to 5
times a solo warrior... soon to be 4 times, 3 times, 2 times, uh oh.

Now on the bright side, you'll actually do more damage than 6 times a
solo warrior. The warrior who is taking the damage at any given point
gives up part of his damage due to stuns (unless he's an ogre). This
won't affect the other 5 warriors however. And any warrior striking
from the front will lose some of his DPS due to parry, block and
dodge... and worst, Riposte. A rough estimate is that warriors (anyone)
striking from the rear arc will do 15% more damage than someone in the
front arc of a mob.

Riposte also blows a small hole in your thesis; those warriors striking
from the front arc will be taking riposte damage. Assuming you form a
circle around the mob, since you never know where it will face next, at
any given time 3 of you will be in the "front" arc. Thus instead of 15%
more damage, you'll be doing half that, or 7.5% more damage... And
you'll be taking 3 times the riposte DPS than a single warrior would
take (admittedly, over a fight theoretically 1/6th as long, so only half
the damage the solo warrior would take this way... but more than the
1/6th built into your assumptions)

Again on the plus side, when low on HP any given warrior will go into
crippling mode, slightly boosting his damage output. I think this point
comes before "low HP aggro" point, so if the group is careful about
spreading out damage, you could end up with all 6 in cripple mode fo a
portion of the fight. Indeed, if going after very easy mobs, you could
deliberately bandage up between fights to just below the "no more
crippling" threshold (40% hp?) and then do fights where everyone is
crippling.

Or you could heal =one= warrior up higher, and have him function as main
tank until he's back down to being crippled, before switching to
backups. With this plan you could have all 5 of the other warriors in
the "rear" arc, thus boosting your damage output by about 5% (two
warriors not in front arc, so not losing their 15%) and saving 2/3rds
the riposte damage.

Another flaw: gear and level. Unless you find 6 warrior clones (or more
likely make them deliberately) you are going to see differences between
them. While this at first appears to mean little, on contemplation, I
think you'll see that -some- warriors generate more aggro than other
warriors. These warriors, then, will interfere with the even spread of
damage absorption which is key to your plan. If they also have more AC
and HP, then this will perhaps even out after all, but if its just that
one who is lower level yet has a better hate generation (say a wood elf
with a high dex and a fast high proc rate weapons) then it may get shot
all to hell, see my "ten little indians" comment above)

At the root of your plan, though, is something more basic. Yes, 6
warriors are a better team than one warrior. But 1 warrior and 5
-other- classes will in almost every instance be a -better- team. Most
classes do more DPS than warriors, -or- are much better healers than
warriors, -or- have slow and haste.

With slow and haste available, a single warrior can probably outkill
your 6 warriors. With slow, haste, heals, and a shaman pet, a warrior
with a shaman friend can almost certainly outkill your 6 warriors. If
you wanted to go pure melee, three warriors sharing out the damage with
3 rogues taking the back end will outkill your 6 warriors, as the mobs
will die much faster, meaning that each of your 3 warriors will be
damaged only as much as each of your 6 warriors were before, yet you
still have 6 people to do the bandaging.

Pull One warrior out to swap in a shaman, or even a druid or cleric, and
your kill rate would go thru the roof. Put in a mage and it would go up
appreciably due to DS plus the mage being better damage output than the
warrior he replaced. Put in a necromancer or shadowknight and you'd be
able to kill things without the down time due to healing; fear kite!
The list goes on and on, removing one warrior and swapping in any other
class would make this group better, to one degree or another.

But if removing -one- warrior helps a little, removing more warriors
helps more. Replacing warriors willy nilly will get you healing, DPS,
slow/haste, crowd control, single pulls... reduce down to just one
warrior and you're in a much better condition. And often, eliminating
even that last, depending on group composition and what your replacement
is, would make the group better still.

Sad but true. Perhaps the upcoming Openings thing plus the other
warrior changes will improve that situation.

Splendid One, 57 gnomage, Firiona Vie
Defeat, 30 warfrog, Morell Thule (deleted)

[Ringo]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:14:35 GMT, Tim Smith

Post by Tim Smith

Post by JFlexer
I've never been able to get a group of melee char's to try an adv... "We
gotta have a healer" and I've seen many cases of casters who won't go
into dungeon without a crack dealer of some sort...

That's too bad. It would be very interesting to see 6 Warriors group.
That's not as absurd as it sounds. Consider the case of 6 Warriors fighting
a melee mob. The Warriors are doing 6 times the damage of a solo Warrior,
so the mob goes down in 1/6th the time. This means the mob generates 1/6th
the damage it would against a solo Warrior.
If the 6 are taunting, so that the mob is spreading the damage equally among
the 6, each Warrior takes just 1/36th the damage they would have taken
soloing that mob.
So, starting from all Warriors full health, if they can find a mob that a
solo Warrior could get down to 97% before dying, the group of 6 could take
that mob.
If they limit themselves to mobs that a solo Warrior could get down to 94%,
the group of 6 could take those mobs on 1/2 health, and so with bandaging,
chain them with low downtime.
A 6 Warrior group in an area where most of the fights are against melee mobs
could actually be very effective.

A few times I was in groups composed of all Monks(pre-nerf).
Think this is the only way an all melee group would work we shed agro
when points got low and passed it around till mob died, bandage up go
again. Lot of fun really unreal dps...

[Paul Botts]

Post by Tim Smith
A 6 Warrior group in an area where most of the fights are against melee mobs
could actually be very effective.

I dunno, seems like a high-risk venture. I can see your scenario provided it
remains one mob at a time, but....no CC, no way to heal during a
fight....all it takes one add (or one runner, got no snare) to crash the
warriors' single-mob-killing system you outlined. And once one or two of the
warriors go down, the rest go down quick. Its all or nothing: no way for
them to stabilize and recover if things go a little bit wrong.

[Lief]

. "Group size right now EQ works, so they shouldn't mess with it."

This is one of the most annoying parts of EQ in my opinion, I have lost
count of the times when we have just filled a group and 1 - 2 more want to
join.

Sure, could make it a raid...but the exp bonus goes out the window, the
little exp that is left is split over more people and the extra kill rate
cant make up for this.

Being able to have more than 6 in a group without HEAVY penalties would be
great, save a lot of bad feeling when you have to tell a guildly, 'sorry, we
are full'. I hate doing that but it happens so often its annoying.

[Lance Berg]

Post by Kobe008
I feel each class should have at least 1 thing no other class has. Are there
any classes right now that have one ability that no other class has? You are
correct when you say soon a rogue and an enchanter will be about the same.
They need to make Enchanters the only class that can Mez. Rangers the only
class that can Track. Warriors the only class that can Taunt. Shamans the
only class that can Slow. Clerics the only class that can heal (ok, that may
be going too far)

I feel quite the reverse, that there shouldn't be -any- function that
only one class can do.

We have 14 classes and can only pick at most 6 in a group. If there
were 14 critical functions that could only be filled by one class each,
then grouping, even with a full group, would be impossible.

If some of the functions were critical but others were not, then you'd
create at least 8 second class citizen classes (assuming 6 critical
functions)

Worse, though, would be that if you needed some particular function,
you'd have to wait for a member of that one class to be available and
willing to come with you.

Early in the game, we had this basic situation; most people believed
that doing anything at all -required- a warrior, an enchanter, and a
cleric. If you happened to be a member of one of the "holy trinity"
then that was all well and good... but otherwise, LFG for hours often
drove people to reroll -as- one of the above, regardless of personal
preferences.

Then there was the monk, also considered by many a "must have" with his
superlative ability to split pulls. This may seem contradictory now,
but you -still- took the holy trinity, and added a monk, even though
most people thought of the enchanter solely as a mezzer. Two slots open
for the remaining 10 classes!

Gradually people discovered that (sometimes after changes) knights could
also tank, that bards and necromancers could also mez, that shaman and
druids could also heal, that split pulling meant you could use single
pulls instead of pull and mez as a strategy.

Strategic changes, nerfs and improvements to various classes (monk nerf,
lull boost come to mind) have altered the game a good deal, but
basically, the idea that for any given job there are around 3 classes
that can do that job decently (perhaps only one who is -best- at it, so
in a tight spot you still need them) takes care of a lot of the hassle
that was inherant in early EQ, where the "sideline classes" had to
compete against dozens of other people LFG, while whole groups would sit
around waiting for the next available cleric because they were missing
that leg of the tripod.

Sadly, there are still classes who sit on the sidelines hoping for a
slot; warriors, once undisputed kings of tanking, are currently "well, I
guess if we can't find a knight lets take the warrior and try it", and
monks seem to have no role at all, weak among the many DPS classes, and
offerering a slow and inefficient method of splitting mobs.

The only functions I can think of where there's only One class that can
do it are fairly esoteric; lock picking (bards can do this, but there
are many places where ONLY a rogue can pick the lock) and PB AE stunning
(want an AE group? You Must bring an enchanter, or perhaps two)

I think, all in all, that this is a good thing, for the reasons I
outlined above; whats needed, IMO is for the two "broken" classes to get
something that they do -better- than other classes, making them
desirable, but not that they alone can do, which could make them
indispensible. Or if you give them something unique, don't make it
crucial, just helpful... in which case it probably won't put them back
to something resembling "equally desirable" when competing with all the
other classes out there.

Splendid One, 57 Gnomage, Firiona Vie

[Ringo]

Post by Lance Berg

Post by Kobe008
I feel each class should have at least 1 thing no other class has. Are there
any classes right now that have one ability that no other class has? You are
correct when you say soon a rogue and an enchanter will be about the same.
They need to make Enchanters the only class that can Mez. Rangers the only
class that can Track. Warriors the only class that can Taunt. Shamans the
only class that can Slow. Clerics the only class that can heal (ok, that may
be going too far)

I feel quite the reverse, that there shouldn't be -any- function that
only one class can do.
We have 14 classes and can only pick at most 6 in a group. If there
were 14 critical functions that could only be filled by one class each,
then grouping, even with a full group, would be impossible.
If some of the functions were critical but others were not, then you'd
create at least 8 second class citizen classes (assuming 6 critical
functions)
Worse, though, would be that if you needed some particular function,
you'd have to wait for a member of that one class to be available and
willing to come with you.
Early in the game, we had this basic situation; most people believed
that doing anything at all -required- a warrior, an enchanter, and a
cleric. If you happened to be a member of one of the "holy trinity"
then that was all well and good... but otherwise, LFG for hours often
drove people to reroll -as- one of the above, regardless of personal
preferences.
Then there was the monk, also considered by many a "must have" with his
superlative ability to split pulls. This may seem contradictory now,
but you -still- took the holy trinity, and added a monk, even though
most people thought of the enchanter solely as a mezzer. Two slots open
for the remaining 10 classes!
Gradually people discovered that (sometimes after changes) knights could
also tank, that bards and necromancers could also mez, that shaman and
druids could also heal, that split pulling meant you could use single
pulls instead of pull and mez as a strategy.
Strategic changes, nerfs and improvements to various classes (monk nerf,
lull boost come to mind) have altered the game a good deal, but
basically, the idea that for any given job there are around 3 classes
that can do that job decently (perhaps only one who is -best- at it, so
in a tight spot you still need them) takes care of a lot of the hassle
that was inherant in early EQ, where the "sideline classes" had to
compete against dozens of other people LFG, while whole groups would sit
around waiting for the next available cleric because they were missing
that leg of the tripod.
Sadly, there are still classes who sit on the sidelines hoping for a
slot; warriors, once undisputed kings of tanking, are currently "well, I
guess if we can't find a knight lets take the warrior and try it", and
monks seem to have no role at all, weak among the many DPS classes, and
offerering a slow and inefficient method of splitting mobs.
The only functions I can think of where there's only One class that can
do it are fairly esoteric; lock picking (bards can do this, but there
are many places where ONLY a rogue can pick the lock) and PB AE stunning
(want an AE group? You Must bring an enchanter, or perhaps two)
I think, all in all, that this is a good thing, for the reasons I
outlined above; whats needed, IMO is for the two "broken" classes to get
something that they do -better- than other classes, making them
desirable, but not that they alone can do, which could make them
indispensible. Or if you give them something unique, don't make it
crucial, just helpful... in which case it probably won't put them back
to something resembling "equally desirable" when competing with all the
other classes out there.
Splendid One, 57 Gnomage, Firiona Vie

Or perhaps just undoing that gawd awful nerf to monks that caused this
situation in the first place ? As for warriors there just doesnt seem
to be any good answer other than just letting the class die off since
they were nerver nerfed only had the game outbloat them. Too many
classes not enough jobs...

[Lance Berg]

Post by Ringo
Or perhaps just undoing that gawd awful nerf to monks that caused this
situation in the first place ? As for warriors there just doesnt seem
to be any good answer other than just letting the class die off since
they were nerver nerfed only had the game outbloat them. Too many
classes not enough jobs...

I don't think you can put that genie back in the bottle. The monk nerf
didn't really cripple them as much as you might think; it didn't make
them that much worse as pullers for exp groups. It didn't affect their
pulling ability at all, in fact, what it did was damage their ability to
survive hard pulls, where they used to be able to withstand a beating
getting things set up, and with their mitigation nerfed, they no longer
could do this as well.

It was a nerf to their ability to solo, or to function as main tank;
they used to (potentially, with the sort of AC they were never intended
to have) be so good at not taking damage that they were actually more
efficient than plate classes if you weren't using a CHeal plan.

I don't think even a full restoration of that degree of mitigation would
change things for them now (other than the soloing) because the exp mobs
people go after these days are not the light hitting mobs of those old
days; now you need someone who can take thousands of points of damage
over a short period of time, and that spells tanks.

Since their ability to -do- damage wasn't nerfed, and their ability to
split pull wasn't nerfed (except in cases where they now get killed
trying it) putting back their mitigation won't help much.

Whats happened that really kills monks is that we've been forced to
learn other pull methods; SK take a beating better, so they started
trying pulling more even though their FD is inferior to monk... and
turns out that with snare (a tool they had all along) they can do the
splits more reliably, faster, easier than monks.

Further, Lull was fixed; back in the old days it failed 75% of the time
and aggroed the whole room 75% of the time when it did fail. Now its
usable, quite reliable (still the occaisional disaster, but rare enough
to just write in as part of the plan). Need for FD splitting drops
dramatically. No matter what you restore to monks, unless you rebreak
lull, its going to be used far more than FD splitting, which simply
takes longer.

Once upon a time, monks were known as -the- pulling class. Now, there
are SK, bard, paladin, cleric, and even Necro pullers, heck, given how
much outdoor action there is these days, ranger and druid pullers too
see a lot of use.

Part of the claim you'll see time and again is that monks are the best
pullers because they know best -how- to pull. But thats old school
thinking; there because those monks were created by players who wanted
to be pullers, and who spent lots of time refining their pulling skills.
If you wanted to be a puller, you made a monk, and if you were a monk,
you pulled all the time, so you learned.

But now, so long after the nerf, there are tons of monks who haven't
been serious pullers ever, because they aren't as effective at it as
other classes. And someone who wants to be a puller has probably made a
SK or bard or paladin (the latter doomed to dissapointment at high
levels) and players of those classes have had the same sort of "of
course I'm the puller" experience that was once the unique province of
monks. Heck, I know former monks who have rerolled as SK so as to be
better able to apply their knowledge with a real puller class.

Give monks back the ability to survive pulls, and you still don't get
the old situation where they were the only ones likely to know -how- to
pull. Can't put the worms back in the can.

Splendid One, 57 Gnomage, Firiona Vie

[Ringo]

Post by Lance Berg

Post by Ringo
Or perhaps just undoing that gawd awful nerf to monks that caused this
situation in the first place ? As for warriors there just doesnt seem
to be any good answer other than just letting the class die off since
they were nerver nerfed only had the game outbloat them. Too many
classes not enough jobs...

I don't think you can put that genie back in the bottle. The monk nerf
didn't really cripple them as much as you might think; it didn't make
them that much worse as pullers for exp groups. It didn't affect their
pulling ability at all, in fact, what it did was damage their ability to
survive hard pulls, where they used to be able to withstand a beating
getting things set up, and with their mitigation nerfed, they no longer
could do this as well.

Considering I started a Monk for 2 reason, solo and pulling that nerf
hit like a ton of bricks. If you think it had little effect on the
folks playing Monks guess again. Drove many of us slam out of the game
even if a lot hung on for a few more months hoping for a change from
sony. No class could replace that Monk, they just werent as much fun.
When you are all alone pulling for the first time in ToV with a whole
raid hanging on your decisions that is job statifaction and the reward
for a LOT of hard work...taking that away was just flat cruel.

Post by Lance Berg
It was a nerf to their ability to solo, or to function as main tank;
they used to (potentially, with the sort of AC they were never intended
to have) be so good at not taking damage that they were actually more
efficient than plate classes if you weren't using a CHeal plan.

This crap about Monks having AC that they were "Never intended to
have" applied to maybe 1% of the Monk player base. The rest of us had
maybe 1100-1200 AC at level 60. That arguement is sheer bullshite. We
could tank maybe long enough for the group to find a real tank or
allow a cleric to camp at the high end. Most of us HATED to tank for a
group as it was just too much to do both jobs. Bah the guy that
started that AC crap was full of shit the whole time he played the
game.

Im going to forgo comment on the rest because it all revolves around
what the uninformed thought Monks were, those who lived and died with
the class know better. Yes bards could pull better after we left our
Monks and played bards, Yes SKs could pull better cause guess who was
playing the SKs. And just for clarification they did nerf Monk damage
by a serious shortage of PoP weapons drops for the class, no where
near the number or quality of drops that the plate classes were
getting. Can you say Windblade?

Hell if for no other reason than simple justice give em back what they
lost and see what happens next....nuff said.

[Lance Berg]

Post by Ringo

Post by Lance Berg

Post by Ringo
Or perhaps just undoing that gawd awful nerf to monks that caused this
situation in the first place ? As for warriors there just doesnt seem
to be any good answer other than just letting the class die off since
they were nerver nerfed only had the game outbloat them. Too many
classes not enough jobs...

I don't think you can put that genie back in the bottle. The monk nerf
didn't really cripple them as much as you might think; it didn't make
them that much worse as pullers for exp groups. It didn't affect their
pulling ability at all, in fact, what it did was damage their ability to
survive hard pulls, where they used to be able to withstand a beating
getting things set up, and with their mitigation nerfed, they no longer
could do this as well.

Considering I started a Monk for 2 reason, solo and pulling that nerf
hit like a ton of bricks. If you think it had little effect on the
folks playing Monks guess again. Drove many of us slam out of the game
even if a lot hung on for a few more months hoping for a change from
sony. No class could replace that Monk, they just werent as much fun.
When you are all alone pulling for the first time in ToV with a whole
raid hanging on your decisions that is job statifaction and the reward
for a LOT of hard work...taking that away was just flat cruel.

I don't think it had little effect on people playing monks, I think it
had little effect on monk's pulling ability for exp groups.

I agree that the nerf was outrageous and largely uncalled for; to any
extent it -was- called for, it was hitting something with a 10 lb
sledgehammer that needed a nudge with a nice 12 oz ball peen.

Post by Ringo

Post by Lance Berg
It was a nerf to their ability to solo, or to function as main tank;
they used to (potentially, with the sort of AC they were never intended
to have) be so good at not taking damage that they were actually more
efficient than plate classes if you weren't using a CHeal plan.

This crap about Monks having AC that they were "Never intended to
have" applied to maybe 1% of the Monk player base. The rest of us had
maybe 1100-1200 AC at level 60. That arguement is sheer bullshite. We
could tank maybe long enough for the group to find a real tank or
allow a cleric to camp at the high end. Most of us HATED to tank for a
group as it was just too much to do both jobs. Bah the guy that
started that AC crap was full of shit the whole time he played the
game.

No, here I have to disagree. I played two seperate clerics back in the
day, and in the kunark/velious era, monks were hands down my favorite
tanks till we got up into the mid to high 50s. Why? Because their HP
bars dropped at the same rate (percentage wise) as that of warriors, but
their bars represented half the HP. This meant that a Superior Heal did
twice as much healing on them as it did on warriors.

As a cleric, eventually this stopped being interesting as I ended up
using CHeal for just about everything, and CHeal was 10k hp, more than
any warrior ever had, so it didnt' matter if the 80% damaged monk had
only 2000 hp to heal and the 80% damaged warrior had 4000 hp to heal;
both were costing me the same mana.

But it was pretty obvious to me that for druids and shaman, that a monk
would continue to be a better MT; no Cheal (long before the introduction
of Incomplete heals), plus their regen would be twice as useful as well.

Then you have to consider buffs. Add a Heroism and Symbol to a warrior,
you make a little bonus room. But add the same spells to a monk, you
get twice as much out of them, because his base HP are so much lower.

SImilarly, AC did nothing at all for warriors; their AC was already
outside the box where it had an effect, monk AC, though, was often
pushing up into that line; an AC boost could really change the numbers
for them.

The reason, IMO, that these things were true is that monks were given
relatively poor AC, leather stuff, given some AC for not wearing or
carrying heavy gear, to add to that, and then given nice mitigation
skills to help out further. But with more and more all all gear that
would actually be nice on warriors, and light weight, monk's base AC
went up thru the roof (compared to what it would have been if they'd
stuck to just leathers) yet they kept their weight based AC -and- their
nice mitigation.

It didn't take 1500AC to have this effect, AC of 1000 or 1100 was pretty
close to the top of what made any difference anyway, over that on a
warrior was just "flash", but didn't really change the damage they took.
Pre POP, remember, mob attack values just weren't all that high.

Post by Ringo
Im going to forgo comment on the rest because it all revolves around
what the uninformed thought Monks were, those who lived and died with
the class know better. Yes bards could pull better after we left our
Monks and played bards, Yes SKs could pull better cause guess who was
playing the SKs. And just for clarification they did nerf Monk damage
by a serious shortage of PoP weapons drops for the class, no where
near the number or quality of drops that the plate classes were
getting. Can you say Windblade?

Again, its not a nerf to have other classes get good weapons. A nerf
would be if monks weapons were all degraded somehow. But they weren't
changed, its just that other classes got even -more- fabulous weaponry,
so in comparison it looked like they changed. Give a monk today the
same weaponry and buffs and gear that he had two years ago, put him up
against the same Velious era mob, and he'd do the same damage. With the
new buffs that are available now, he'd do -more- damage. But he'd still
lose because he can't take the damage the way he could then.

Post by Ringo
Hell if for no other reason than simple justice give em back what they
lost and see what happens next....nuff said.

I think that would be a simple solution... or at least a good start. I
think with the itemization that other classes have now, you still
wouldn't see monks back in the preeminant position they had back in the
day... but it would at least be a good start at restoring some dignity
to the class.

Splendid One, 57 gnomage, Firiona Vie (current main, not too relevant to
this)
Bergh, 65 cleric Morel Thule, semi retired
Praise, 49 cleric, Luclin, long since retired (but dating from pre
kunark to early Velious)
Paax, 52 shaman, Morell Thule (never had access to pre nerf monk, but
can imagine from my cleric experience)

[JFlexer]

Post by Ringo
Or perhaps just undoing that gawd awful nerf to monks that caused this
situation in the first place ? As for warriors there just doesnt seem
to be any good answer other than just letting the class die off since
they were nerver nerfed only had the game outbloat them.

Hey, now!

Don't even *think* that!!

Jeffers
46 Warrior, The Rathe

[Ringo]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:43:51 -0800, "JFlexer"

Post by JFlexer

Post by Ringo
Or perhaps just undoing that gawd awful nerf to monks that caused this
situation in the first place ? As for warriors there just doesnt seem
to be any good answer other than just letting the class die off since
they were nerver nerfed only had the game outbloat them.

Hey, now!
Don't even *think* that!!
Jeffers
46 Warrior, The Rathe

Well sorry but having been beaten with just about every melee nerf
stick there was I just dont see any way for it to work. Look at it
this way;

I had a ranger pre-kunark loved it, then one day...

I had a monk pre-pop and was digging the hell out of it then one
day....

I had a warrior pre-ldon liked it a lot then one day...

I started an SK loved it then found myself looking over my shoulder
for a nerf stick ...so I left EQ before they could get him too. Enough
was after all enough.

Granted the war wasnt directly nerfed but was hit by changing game
mechanics and limited versatility. An indirect nerf I guess. Really no
good way to fix it.

[Lief]

Post by Ringo
Granted the war wasnt directly nerfed but was hit by changing game
mechanics and limited versatility. An indirect nerf I guess. Really no
good way to fix it.

Warriors cry the loudest, they have some issues, but in all honestley I dont
mind / care if a GOOD warrior tanks in place of a knight.

A good warrior meaning they know what aggro is, they know how to taunt, they
are not obsessed with doing 'teh big damage'.

Ignorance of the general playerbase is the main problem, oh and warriors
complaining each day doesnt add to there desireability (spelling suks :P )
of groups.

Warriors do as much / more melee damage as a ranger, when not tanking, yep,
they suck alright.

To put it another way, having a warrior tank has never slowed down exp for
me over having a paladin tank, just takes a little more skill /effort from
the group, which is the major lacking factor in (pickup) groups these days,
IMO.
--
Hunter Lief Caelestis
Forest Stalker of Tunare
Venril Sathir

[Ronny Cook]

Post by Lief

Post by Ringo
Granted the war wasnt directly nerfed but was hit by changing game
mechanics and limited versatility. An indirect nerf I guess. Really no
good way to fix it.

Warriors cry the loudest, they have some issues, but in all honestley I dont
mind / care if a GOOD warrior tanks in place of a knight.
A good warrior meaning they know what aggro is, they know how to taunt, they
are not obsessed with doing 'teh big damage'.

Unfortunately it's not that simple.

They need all of that and good (or excellent) equipment. Because the only
ways they have of getting aggro are Taunt, raw damage and procs.

Given that Taunt fails, they are left relying on raw damage (insufficient)
and procs (too random) for aggro.

Many classes have become used to knight/ranger-level aggro and will
overnuke, or slow early, or in general ignore the limitations that
the warrior has to deal with. Then when they get aggro, it's naturally
blamed on the warrior.

The best warrior in the world is going to have trouble getting aggro
if taunt fails, their hate procs refuse to go off, and the wizard
lets go with a 5k crit nuke.

...Ronny

[Lief]

Post by Ronny Cook
Many classes have become used to knight/ranger-level aggro and will
overnuke, or slow early, or in general ignore the limitations that
the warrior has to deal with. Then when they get aggro, it's naturally
blamed on the warrior.

Yes...basically the warrior is not broken, they are not knights / rangers,
they are a different class.

Just because other people dont know how to adapt there aggro when a warrior
is there doesn't mean warriors are broken, just others are lazy.

The main problem that warriors have is not the aggro problem by itself, but
the fact that knights can get almost the same hp AND have the aggro
advantage, this still doesnt mean warriors are inherentley a broken class.

[Lance Berg]

Post by Lief

Post by Ronny Cook
Many classes have become used to knight/ranger-level aggro and will
overnuke, or slow early, or in general ignore the limitations that
the warrior has to deal with. Then when they get aggro, it's naturally
blamed on the warrior.

Yes...basically the warrior is not broken, they are not knights / rangers,
they are a different class.
Just because other people dont know how to adapt there aggro when a warrior
is there doesn't mean warriors are broken, just others are lazy.

When adapting means you are casting 2 nukes per mob, so you wait till
80% for the first nuke and wait till 40 on the second nuke, thats quite
true.

But when adapting means you go from casting 3 nukes (say at 90, 60, 30)
to casting 2 (80 40), then it -isn'- a case of lazy, its a case of the
warrior's aggro limiting your ability to deal damage. With today's
focus, FT, KEI environment, its often possible to do more damage than
aggro will permit.

If aggro control means backstab followed immediately by evade, then its
no problem. But if it means delaying backstabs till you see a warrior
weapon proc, then its slowing down stabs per minute.

If aggro control means the ranger has to jolt occaisionally, then thats
the ranger's problem. But if it means he has to put away his highest
damage producing weapons and use something with less aggro even though
it does less damage (perhaps slower, perhaps without procs) then its
reducing his DPS.

Another problem with aggro is slow. Slow a mob on incoming, versus
slowing a mob at 80%, thats allowing a mob to do its full damage rate
for 20% of its life span. Since this full damage rate is typically 4
times its slowed rate, thats 80% more damage dealt by the mob than one
who was slowed on incoming. Your healer is now having to spend nearly
twice as much mana per fight, potentially.

And speaking of your healer, even if the slow thing is ignored, if he
has to wait longer before landing a heal, that can mean in a spiky
damage environment, more deaths on the part of the warrior. If he
heals sooner, (which often he must due to the slow thing) then he's
likely to get aggro, which wouldn't have happened with the knight MT's.
This is compounded by the fact that paladins have LOH in case of
incipent disaster, and SK (assuming there's another tank handy to hold
aggro temporarily) can FD if their heal is coming a bit late.

SK and Paladin's ability to hold aggro can mean more damage from your
DPS classes. In particular a paladin's ability to stun can mean that
who has aggro at any given moment isn't all that relevant, as the mob
can be halted in its tracks for long enough to get aggro back, even if
the stun itself didn't achieve the job. Similarly, the SK's snare means
that at least for casters, getting aggro doesn't mean the mob will
actually get to them before the SK has it back.

Post by Lief
The main problem that warriors have is not the aggro problem by itself, but
the fact that knights can get almost the same hp AND have the aggro
advantage, this still doesnt mean warriors are inherentley a broken class.

Compound that by the fact that warriors have no utility purpose at all;
paladins bring backup healing, buffs, lull, root, stuns; SK bring snare,
FD, other buffs (including the tap to benefit group series). Warriors
bring.. what, more HP? Only they don't bring more HP anymore!

The changes being worked out on test seem to be designed to address
these problems, warriors should have better aggro, and their own unique
utility in the form of those melee openings, whatever they end up
consisting of.

I can't comment on the details (as I don't know them and haven't done
the research to find out about them) but this suggests to me that SOE at
least understands the problem.

In my opinion, they are solving it wrong; the solution I would have
preferred would have been to (largely) eliminate the aggro problem
(which they seem to be doing) and to restore the HP difference warriors
used to enjoy (pre velious, warriors tended to have 25% or so more HP
than a comperably equipped knight) and fix the AC system so a difference
in AC means better mitigation; and if knights now enjoy the same high AC
as warriors, fix that too.

In other words, keep playing a warrior relatively simple, give them
taunt enough to not damage the other member's of their group ability to
use all their advantages, and give them an advantage, not in flexibility
or utility (which should be what knights get in exchange for giving up
some of their ability to sponge) but in sheer ability to soak up damage.

Either way, though, you are tampering with a somewhat delicate balance;
once upon a time warriors were unquestioned kings of the Tank field and
knights could go hours begging for a group while people shouted group of
five looking for a warrior right next to them. Now, Paladins and
Shadowknights share the throne and often warriors can go fish while
groups wait for a real tank.

The danger here is of swinging the pendulum back to the warrior,
screwing two classes to fix one!

Splendid One, 58 Gnomage, Firiona Vie

ps: all this said, I'll add that I normally group with warrior MA, both
in Winterfury's circle of friends, and in my regular nightly LDoN
group... heck, the LDoN group core is warrior, cleric, paladin, and me,
and -still- the warrior is MA. Does Winterfury take a beating from
slowing early? Yes, but shaman are well suited to taking the
occaisional beating in the environments we've been in thus far. Do I
get pounded in my LDoN group? Not often, no, I'm still mana limited to
the point where I usually can't sustain a nuke rate high enough to get
aggro, plus there's the paladin to quickly grab it away from me in an
emergency, and there's also my pet; if I'm using air or earth I usually
can ditch aggro fairly quickly.

But from my former life as a 65 cleric, I know that these things can
become more and more of a problem as the mobs start getting tougher and
the caster gear starts getting better. Where right now we can shrug off
the odd aggro accident, later we'll be looking at mobs that can one
round us, heck, unslowed may be able to one round our warriors!

[Paul Botts]

Not to say I'm having a conversation with myself here or anything (ahem),
but the description below (from a different thread here) is a perfect

The idea is to give monks back the role that they always had, that
of puller. Ask most high-level monks why they made a monk, and
the answer is "to pull". But with Fading Memories, a bard can,
in most circumstances, pull better than a monk *and do many
other crucial jobs*. So to bring the classes back into balance,
and to give monks a role again, you can either nerf bards
or enhance monks. The route they chose was to enhance monks.

Exactly right. Since nerfing a class has such high negative consequences for
the game designers (alienating paying customers who play the nerfed class),
they usually choose the other route. The result being that gradually more
and more classes are filling the same functions for groups, a form of steady
inflation.


Ooo, I thought of another possible new basic character function: what if
operating in the underwater environment became a serious part of the game,
and doing it successfully as a group involved more than just enduring
breath? Like some whole zones or dungeons that are underwater, and only
certain melee classes have the particular underwater-fighting
skill(s)....could be some racial aspect to it as well, like vah shir
beastlords and their warders are terrible at fighting mobs underwater while
iksar BSTs/warders are good at it....some casting classes can bring their
DPS or healing or CC to this environment well, others can't....etc. And
you'd need to make the need to group underwater be something that regular
groups want to reckon with, in other words for example certain LDoN
adventures might require operating underwater for a bit to get the win.
Certain loot-juicy mobs in places like LOIO try to pull your tank underwater
for the fight. Etc.

So now we'd have a whole new layer to the class-balance aspect, and for
example instead of giving monks lull which doesn't actually give them a
unique function, make them the DPS class that kicks butt underwater. To give
clerics back some of their uniqueness now that druids have a semi-CHeal,
have only the cleric CHeal work underwater. And so forth.