f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Everquest 2 => Topic started by: jpark on September 27, 2004, 05:56:15 PM



Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: jpark on September 27, 2004, 05:56:15 PM
I've been thinking about this:  in almost any MMORPG the ultimate sacrafice class is the Healer - which if you assume this role - getting groups is pretty easy given the rarity of this class (WoW, EQ, CoH, Shadowbane).

I am beginning to think EQ2 may break this pattern.

EQ2 in my understanding assures that all subclasses belonging to the Priest class (shaman, inquisitor, fury, templar) can all heal the same.  We know that in EQ that while clerics were rare, druids and shamans were not.  This simple measure may make "healers" as popular a class as any other - by ensuring that many classes have equal stewardship over healing, rather than the single (cleric) class of EQ (or empathy in CoH; Priest in WoW etc.).

While there may be obstacles to getting a good group together in EQ2 - making sure you have a healer will not likely be one of them anymore.

This one of the reasons I am beginning to consider EQ (someday they will hire some artists though I am sure) - it offers new mechanics to address old problems and will most assuredly introduce entirely new issues (locked encounters etc.).


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Romp on September 27, 2004, 08:18:01 PM
from my memory of EQ the main reason to have a cleric in your group was for resing not for healing.  Druids or Shamans and even some other classes could heal but no one wanted to group if they couldnt get a res if they died and lost all their xp so everyone had to have a cleric.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: ajax34i on September 27, 2004, 08:28:52 PM
I'm not sure if any of the listed sub-classes are like what the EQ druid was.  It doesn't sound like it, judging by their names.

I played a cleric, and part of the fun of the class was the fact that we could pretty much heal nicely and be appreciated.  I'm not sure if it'll be possible to still feel special with these subclasses, especially if they all get the same healing spells.  They feel like all the work and none of the recognition.

But what they're doing makes sense, I guess.  The group of people who actually liked playing cleric is much smaller than the group of people who liked a class with diversity, including the ability to heal somewhat (druid).  So swapping one group for the other will get them a much bigger healer base, even if not the exact same people as before.  Provided that each of the 4 subclasses listed above provides diversity, ability to solo, a whole range of useful utility spells, etc.  Like the druid class did.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: CassandraR on September 27, 2004, 10:23:48 PM
The healer classes will have different cames of heals from what I heard. I think they will probably have some baseline heals from the archtype then their own specialized heal. Clerics and Templars using instant heals, druid classes using heals over time, and shaman classes using absorb shields that provide temporary hitpoints then heal a certain amount when they are breached. Might of changed though.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Numtini on September 28, 2004, 06:00:26 AM
Quote
druid classes using heals over time


As someone who played a DAOC Shaman because they were a healing class, I am not interested in trusting devs to balance "different types of healing."


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: El Gallo on September 28, 2004, 06:23:36 AM
Quote from: Romp
from my memory of EQ the main reason to have a cleric in your group was for resing not for healing.  Druids or Shamans and even some other classes could heal but no one wanted to group if they couldnt get a res if they died and lost all their xp so everyone had to have a cleric.


This changed a lot in PoP and beyond.  Basically, from original release through Luclin, they made mobs harder by increasing their hit points and mitigation a ton, but their damage output only a little.  In PoP-GoD, they made them harder by having them do a metric fuckon of damage, despite low hit points and little mitigation.  This made cleric-level healing much more important.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Sable Blaze on September 28, 2004, 08:36:18 AM
It did at first, but as melee classes gained AA and more and more AC and hit points through itemization, druids became viable healers again (and got their own AAs, etc.).

My guild used druids heavily in CH-chains for Luclin and PoP content. Much of our CH-chain for RZtW was done with druids. As the so-called tank classes surpassed the 8k hps mark and 2k AC, it just became easier for druids and even shaman to support a group. Clerics were always preferred, but their availability was always very limited (and no wonder).

EQoA had all the "priest" classes use essentially the same healing spells. This works out fine, but the stumbling point is what else the classes offer. The problem was the cleric was extremely good at healing, but could do little else (other than nuke undead). So for most gameplay you'd use druids or shaman and clerics languished unless you were fighting stuff WAY over your head.

Hopefully, the individual priest classes in EQ2 have a broader spectrum of abilities that we've seen so far in EQ games. Otherwise, clerics will again languish as a practically unplayed class, aside from heal-bots.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Polysorbate80 on September 28, 2004, 09:20:49 AM
Clerics got a raw deal for a while; shaman/druids were indeed preferred for their other abilities during the earlier part of EQ's existance.

After much bitching and moaning and re-balancing and re-re-balancing, clerics are now on top of the healing food chain, druids are an acceptable second for healing, and shamans still kinda take it in the shorts thanks to mobs mitigating slow.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Alluvian on September 28, 2004, 09:33:48 AM
The only people who can answer this question are those who can't answer the question.  NDA.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: jpark on September 28, 2004, 09:45:41 AM
Quote from: Numtini
Quote
druid classes using heals over time


As someone who played a DAOC Shaman because they were a healing class, I am not interested in trusting devs to balance "different types of healing."


Or any developer.  Even in CoH which I have the upmost respect for - not all tank builds are equal (stone, fire, invulnerability etc.).  So which subclass you choose will be critical.

Healing over time is great for pvp (Shadowbane) and grinding (EQ) or AoE attacks against party members (CoH).  But not for any serious raiding.

I realize folks can't break the EQ2 NDA if they are part of the beta - so this thread is really in the spirit if uninformed speculation :)


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: El Gallo on September 28, 2004, 05:20:25 PM
Heh, SoE is essentially selling beta invites for $100 a pop.  I wonder how many people register for this fan faire and how many actually show up :)

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/loadNews/2278


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Sky on September 29, 2004, 06:33:10 AM
I heard Dick Cheney sits on Sony's board now!


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: El Gallo on September 29, 2004, 07:23:31 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of P.T. Barnum.

Yes I actually considered registering for the beta invite.  I hate myself and want to die.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Shannow on September 29, 2004, 09:14:59 AM
Heh anyone play Arctic MUD? Man the standard MMORPG players head would pop if they had to go through what you did on that one to get 'heal' for you cleric

Nothing like 50 runs to Xak Tsaroth to pop a heal staff and fail the spell.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: jpark on September 29, 2004, 09:26:46 AM
I am still confused a bit on this point after reviewing the EQ2 boards more.  Some poster indicate that the Cleric is still the best healer.  So I am confused just how much on an equal footing Priests are (cleric, fury etc.) in healing power.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: shiznitz on September 29, 2004, 12:01:24 PM
Quote from: El Gallo
Heh, SoE is essentially selling beta invites for $100 a pop.  I wonder how many people register for this fan faire and how many actually show up :)

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/loadNews/2278


The announcement uses the word "attendees" so it reads like one has to pay $100 AND show up to get in the beta.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: El Gallo on September 29, 2004, 12:19:34 PM
It's not worded very well, but it reads to me that they are goving registrants beta invitations on or about Oct 11.  Since the FF isn't until Oct 28, I don't think they can condition it on actual attendence.  Then again, maybe they'll just take it away if you don't show.  I don't think that's what they are doing, since this comes across to me as a "buy your way into beta for $100, but we'll paper it over by saying we are letting you in to prepare for the fan faire catass competition."  I could be wrong about their intent.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: blindy on September 30, 2004, 01:39:09 PM
Quote from: Shannow
Heh anyone play Arctic MUD?


Yeah, I played it off and on for a few years.  I think I still remember the path through the cleric only section of xak (s;s;get key;unlock door;open door;s;get staff altar;study staff;n;n;n;recite recall me;shout fuck, I failed heal staff;quit;4;password). Like anything, it gets old, but it was a game I liked a lot, more than any MMORPG I've played.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Merusk on September 30, 2004, 02:11:40 PM
Quote from: El Gallo
It's not worded very well, but it reads to me that they are goving registrants beta invitations on or about Oct 11.  Since the FF isn't until Oct 28, I don't think they can condition it on actual attendence.  Then again, maybe they'll just take it away if you don't show.  I don't think that's what they are doing, since this comes across to me as a "buy your way into beta for $100, but we'll paper it over by saying we are letting you in to prepare for the fan faire catass competition."  I could be wrong about their intent.


I saw it confirmed on  /gu comic's boards (http://forums.gucomics.com/viewtopic.php?t=4213) that attendence is not mandatory.  So yeah, you could pay SOE $100 to get into the EQ2 beta.

You'd have been better off pre-ordering LOE if you wanted to pay your way in. At least then you'd have a game and paid 1/2 the price.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Nebu on September 30, 2004, 02:30:57 PM
I think the role of the healer in mmog's sucks on so many levels that it will be tough to fix without just eliminating the class entirely.  

I played a cleric to 60 in EQ (this was Velious and 60 was the cap), a friar, shaman, and druid in daoc.  From those limited experiences, here's my brief summary for your flaming pleasure:

1) The only skill required is the ability to cycle through your targets and pick the appropriate heal for the situation.  Tanks can use a slow cast/high hp heal while casters require a fast cast heal.  Often this became mind-numbingly boring in a very short time.  Not being a proactive member of the action (i.e. a damage dealer) made you a reactive player... this wasn't my style though I was considered a "good" healer.

2) If you do your job it's expected... when things go to hell (often because of someone else's screw up) you're the goat.  

3) Buffing people isn't fun.

4) Rezzing people is less fun. I can remember people bitching at me in EQ because I wouldn't traverse 8 zones to give them a rez.  These were people I didn't even know...

Bottom line: if you make playing a support class fun, people will play it.  Being a druid in EQ was at least marginally more fun than being a cleric and soon you saw more druids and fewer clerics.  If your game is going to have support classes, then at least give them some good abilities that require proactive (rather than reactive) action to play them.  

I have found being a cleric in EQ and a druid in daoc to be unfun experiences and wonder why (beyond their desire to fill a group need) anyone would even play one.  I guess if you have a strong desire to get into an uber group, being a support class is one way to do it... just another example of how people see "fun" differently.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Evil Elvis on September 30, 2004, 05:38:13 PM
This thread is about class based systems, which, by the way, suck ass.

More open skill tree systems, please.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Sky on October 01, 2004, 07:15:25 AM
Quote
Bottom line: if you make playing a support class fun, people will play it.

The beginning of the end of EQ for me was when my necro went from being a lord of the undead to a mana battery. Now I can't cast my spells on mobs, I have to sit like a bitch and give my mana to someone else, so they can use their spells?

No.

And I'd cast Ignite Bones if anyone had a problem with that ;)


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 01, 2004, 07:33:37 AM
The healer class is fundamentally flawed because it hurts soloing.  For a healers heals to be worthwhile, individual healing must be hurt to the point where soloing those classes becomes non-viable.  In turn, the healer is also made a non-viable solo class in turn because the non-healing abilities must be correspondingly reduced.  (Note that this is in the ideal; there are cases of games where this type of balance wasn't accomplished.)

Now, personally, since I want a solo-friendly MMOG, I would simply accept the fact healers would be second-class citizens.  Their heals and other abilities would still be very useful; they simply wouldn't be necessary.  The only people who would be healers are people who WANT to be healers, and if they WANT to be healers you really don't have to worry about making the class more attractive from a play-balance standpoint.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Ardent on October 01, 2004, 08:22:55 AM
Quote from: SirBruce
Now, personally, since I want a solo-friendly MMOG, I would simply accept the fact healers would be second-class citizens.


I think City of Heroes take on this is interesting. By choosing different kinds of primary and secondary ability lines, many combinations of classes are hybrids. You can be a healer who can nuke or tank, or a tank who can do a bit of healing. It is up to you to decide when you acquire your abilities (do I want to load up on my invulnerability early on, or my empathy, or a combination?).

Of course, I can't really say how successful the formula is past level 15, which is as high as I got.

In any case, the title of this thread poses a question. I don't think it's breaking the NDA to say that EQ2 is a group-centric game, as SOE has said as much in their marketing materials. You can extrapolate from there.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: El Gallo on October 01, 2004, 08:37:25 AM
To solo well you need to be adequate at everything (dealing damage, avoiding/mitigating damage, healing).  Classes that are the best at one of these things have to be weak in the others to preserve balance.  This makes it difficult for those classes to solo.

One way to get around that is to come up with mechanics that prevent you from using your most powerful specialized abilities when soloing while at the same time granting you access to adequate proficiency in the other areas.  What I am thinking of is more of a buff/debuff in one.  When it is active, the cleric's healing ability goes down, but their damage goes up.  Your tank classes could have access to a similar ability that reduces their defense to a reasonable level, but increases their damage to a reasonable level.  WoW is sort of doing this with some classes (warriors via stances most obviously, the "solo stance" gives the warrior enough dps to solo effectively, but a at the cost of the warrior's defensive skill) but I don't know if that's the intent (it also isn't balanced well atm).


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Ardent on October 01, 2004, 09:52:40 AM
Quote from: El Gallo
To solo well you need to be adequate at everything (dealing damage, avoiding/mitigating damage, healing).  Classes that are the best at one of these things have to be weak in the others to preserve balance.  This makes it difficult for those classes to solo.


If anything, WoW is the game that seems to be addressing this problem. Priests, shaman and druids all have fairly decent DPS (I haven't played a paladin). I can solo all three of those classes into the mid-20s without breaking a sweat, and they are all incredibly useful in groups.

Even at higher levels, druids and shaman (druids especially) can choose to use their talents to come close to equalling priests at healing, and keep their already formidable support abilities.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 01, 2004, 10:15:06 AM
Quote from: Ardent

If anything, WoW is the game that seems to be addressing this problem. Priests, shaman and druids all have fairly decent DPS (I haven't played a paladin). I can solo all three of those classes into the mid-20s without breaking a sweat, and they are all incredibly useful in groups.


Not and do the Elite quests, you can't.  Which is why I won't be subscribing to WoW.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Ardent on October 01, 2004, 10:49:36 AM
Quote from: SirBruce
Not and do the Elite quests, you can't.  Which is why I won't be subscribing to WoW.


Well, if you're looking for a game you can solo at every level, none of the big ones about to be released are going to satisfy you.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Rasix on October 01, 2004, 11:03:59 AM
Quote from: SirBruce
Quote from: Ardent

If anything, WoW is the game that seems to be addressing this problem. Priests, shaman and druids all have fairly decent DPS (I haven't played a paladin). I can solo all three of those classes into the mid-20s without breaking a sweat, and they are all incredibly useful in groups.


Not and do the Elite quests, you can't.  Which is why I won't be subscribing to WoW.

Bruce


This has got to be one of the dumber gripes I've ever heard. OHH NOES, I CAN'T SOLO THE WORLD.  Really, what percentage of the overall quests are going to be Elite?  You'll still likely have enough quests to keep you happily progressing alone through the tree.

Really, what's wrong with occasionally having people group for a completely optional part of the game?  Should I be able to enter an instance for a "one man raid" and take out the big scary dragon all by myself? Should WoW design every single little bit of content to keep in mind that some people just won't group ever?  

Take a long hard look at WoW and burn it into your retinas. This is as solo friendly of a MMORPG you're going to see for a while.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Alkiera on October 01, 2004, 11:04:16 AM
Quote from: SirBruce
Quote from: Ardent

If anything, WoW is the game that seems to be addressing this problem. Priests, shaman and druids all have fairly decent DPS (I haven't played a paladin). I can solo all three of those classes into the mid-20s without breaking a sweat, and they are all incredibly useful in groups.


Not and do the Elite quests, you can't.  Which is why I won't be subscribing to WoW.

Bruce


I STILL don't understand this argument.  MMOGs are, by definition, played by more than one person.  By design, most if not all of them want you to play with some of those other people.  People working together(or even working seperately in the same location) are more effective than a solo player.  So, to provide challenges to a group of people working together, you need make more difficult encounters.  Pretty much always, this difficulty increase means the encounter can no longer be completed by a solo player.

This would imply, from your own statement, that an MMOG you'd subscribe to could have no content designed for groups, only for solo content.  I know of no MMOs, live or in development, which meet this requirement, tho there are several online games which do...  Diablo 2, Neverwinter Nights(official campaigns only), and similar titles.

These kinds of games do not really attract people who desire grouping, since grouping in these games amounts to having several people solo in the same direction in the same area.

The concept of an MMO without group content isn't gonna fly any time soon, SirBruce.  Sorry.

--
Alkiera


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Ardent on October 01, 2004, 11:18:34 AM
Quote from: Rasix
Take a long hard look at WoW and burn it into your retinas. This is as solo friendly of a MMORPG you're going to see for a while.


Rasix said it better than I could.

So, I'm going to plagiarize slightly: Take a long hard look at WoW and burn it into your retinas. This is as healer class friendly of a MMORPG you're going to see for a while.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 01, 2004, 12:13:29 PM
Quote from: Alkiera
Quote from: SirBruce
Quote from: Ardent

If anything, WoW is the game that seems to be addressing this problem. Priests, shaman and druids all have fairly decent DPS (I haven't played a paladin). I can solo all three of those classes into the mid-20s without breaking a sweat, and they are all incredibly useful in groups.


Not and do the Elite quests, you can't.  Which is why I won't be subscribing to WoW.

Bruce


I STILL don't understand this argument.


Please do a search on the boards.  The subject has come up before and I've explained it before.  MMOGs should be like movie theatres or plays or concerts or sporting events... you can be entertained by them whether you go with a group of friends or if you go alone.

Quote

This would imply, from your own statement, that an MMOG you'd subscribe to could have no content designed for groups, only for solo content.  I know of no MMOs, live or in development, which meet this requirement, tho there are several online games which do...  Diablo 2, Neverwinter Nights(official campaigns only), and similar titles.


Ideally, the MMOG would have no content designed for groups, yes.  Or rather, the content could be dynamic enough so the same "quest" could be enjoyed be either a group or solo, and the mobs involved would adjust accordingly.

While no MMOG fits this bill perfectly, several are more conducive to solo play than others.  WoW isn't one of them.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 01, 2004, 12:18:34 PM
Quote from: Rasix

This has got to be one of the dumber gripes I've ever heard. OHH NOES, I CAN'T SOLO THE WORLD.  Really, what percentage of the overall quests are going to be Elite?  You'll still likely have enough quests to keep you happily progressing alone through the tree.


When I was playing the stress test beta, about 20% of my quests were elite, and over half of those required grouping to accomplish at the assigned level.

Quote

Really, what's wrong with occasionally having people group for a completely optional part of the game?  Should I be able to enter an instance for a "one man raid" and take out the big scary dragon all by myself? Should WoW design every single little bit of content to keep in mind that some people just won't group ever?  


Yes.

Quote

Take a long hard look at WoW and burn it into your retinas. This is as solo friendly of a MMORPG you're going to see for a while.


You need to try more games.  There are several games out there more solo friendly than WoW, and more in development.  AC2, CoH, and EQ II (according to their development statements, anyway) spring to mind.  UX:O was going to be more solo-friendly as well.  Note that none of those are perfect; CoH, for example, had task forces that couldn't be done solo, but they were infrequent quests that were fairly easy to get pick-up groups to do.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Rasix on October 01, 2004, 12:40:57 PM
Bruce, I'd bother to rebut, but you made all of my points for me. Thanks.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Ardent on October 01, 2004, 12:50:29 PM
Quote from: SirBruce
When I was playing the stress test beta, about 20% of my quests were elite, and over half of those required grouping to accomplish at the assigned level.


That is a complete exaggeration.

From levels 1-20, you will probably do close to 100 quests, and exactly zero (0) of them will be elite.

For post-20+ levels, elite quests will increase, and will likely be closer to 5-10% of your total quest burden.

Elite quests are completely optional, but they do represent great ways to gain XP and the best quest rewards and (GASP!) interact with other people in a multiplayer game.

Quote
There are several games out there more solo friendly than WoW, and more in development. AC2, CoH, and EQ II


OK, you go ahead and keep thinking that.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 01, 2004, 01:41:25 PM
Quote from: Ardent
Quote from: SirBruce
When I was playing the stress test beta, about 20% of my quests were elite, and over half of those required grouping to accomplish at the assigned level.


That is a complete exaggeration.

From levels 1-20, you will probably do close to 100 quests, and exactly zero (0) of them will be elite.


This is simply false.  Perhaps that's true of the race(s) you were playing, but of my race, it was not.  And I never even reached level 20.

Quote

Quote
There are several games out there more solo friendly than WoW, and more in development. AC2, CoH, and EQ II


OK, you go ahead and keep thinking that.


I will, because it is true.  The question is why you keep thinking what you think, despite evidence to the contrary.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Ardent on October 01, 2004, 02:01:06 PM
Quote from: SirBruce
And I never even reached level 20.


Heehee! OK, I see what I'm dealing with now. No point in continuing this.

Six months from now, I will be curious to hear your opinions of trying to solo with a WoW priest, druid or shaman as compared to a EQ2 priest class. Should be a fun read.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: schild on October 01, 2004, 02:38:29 PM
Quote from: Ardent
Quote from: SirBruce
And I never even reached level 20.


Heehee! OK, I see what I'm dealing with now. No point in continuing this.

Six months from now, I will be curious to hear your opinions of trying to solo with a WoW priest, druid or shaman as compared to a EQ2 priest class. Should be a fun read.


First of all, Ardent - keep trolling to bash EQ2, it's clever. Really.

Break NDA again and you get banned. K? Go to the Vault or B.net forums - they would eat your shit right up. I just won't have it here.

Also, If you are going to break NDA, make it worthwhile. You might as well criticize actual problems with the game instead of making loose comparisons to WoW in areas that don't even correlate given the class structure of the two games.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Ardent on October 01, 2004, 03:10:10 PM
Schild,

I was trying to answer the question posed in the thread title, but it is difficult to do so without treading across the NDA line. If I went too far, I'm sorry, and I'll stop.

I was trying to make a point about healer classes and soloability, and I should have just stuck to games like WoW and CoH to get my opinion across.

This thread in itself is NDA bait. I'll spit out the worm.


Title: Re: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Unei on October 01, 2004, 03:12:45 PM
Quote from: jpark
We know that in EQ that while clerics were rare...


Untrue.  Clerics are the most popular class in EQ.

http://www.eqrankings.com/


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Kairos on October 01, 2004, 05:03:44 PM
Quote from: SirBruce

Please do a search on the boards.  The subject has come up before and I've explained it before.  MMOGs should be like movie theatres or plays or concerts or sporting events... you can be entertained by them whether you go with a group of friends or if you go alone.


That's a nice sentiment and all, but it really doesn't work out that way. Movies and plays and concerts and sporting events are all passive forms of entertainment. Video games require active participation from the players. The game experience simply isn't going to be the same whether you're playing by yourself or with other people, no matter how hard to try to make it that way.

I personally hate grouping with people I don't already know, so my MMOG playing is restricted to soloing and grouping with any of my friends who happen to be playing as well. Even so, I don't go around saying that everything should be tailored exactly for my antisocial playing style. MMOGs really are meant to be played with other people, and I for one am pleased when I can get away with experiencing as much of the content as is possible in WoW by myself. To make the game much more solo friendly would be to make an online single-player game, and what the hell is the point of that?


Title: Re: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: jpark on October 01, 2004, 06:55:57 PM
Quote from: Unei
Quote from: jpark
We know that in EQ that while clerics were rare...


Untrue.  Clerics are the most popular class in EQ.

http://www.eqrankings.com/


I think your position confuses me.   In EQ clerics remain one of the classes in greatest demand - imo - which if you agree does not fit the statistic you are referring to above.

My bud who left EQ the same time I did - a cleric himself - to this day a year later receives emails from the number one guild on that server begging him to come back a cleric - they are so hard to come by.  hehe even now - they have him botted and are flagging him - since he has refused to spend time to flag himself.  They are flagging him in the hopes he will return.

When I look at the link there is no adjustment for level.  I have no doubt folks may have toyed with the idea of heal bots - but did the ever advance the character or spend real time playing it?

Are you seriously saying that clerics are not in demand in EQ?  Or have I misunderstood the use of the statistic you are citing?


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Merusk on October 01, 2004, 07:15:00 PM
Quote from: schild
Quote from: Ardent
Quote from: SirBruce
And I never even reached level 20.


Heehee! OK, I see what I'm dealing with now. No point in continuing this.

Six months from now, I will be curious to hear your opinions of trying to solo with a WoW priest, druid or shaman as compared to a EQ2 priest class. Should be a fun read.


First of all, Ardent - keep trolling to bash EQ2, it's clever. Really.

Break NDA again and you get banned. K? Go to the Vault or B.net forums - they would eat your shit right up. I just won't have it here.

Also, If you are going to break NDA, make it worthwhile. You might as well criticize actual problems with the game instead of making loose comparisons to WoW in areas that don't even correlate given the class structure of the two games.


He was starting that in the future he wanted to hear Bruce back-up the implication that EQ2 would be more solo-friendly than WoW in the way Bruce has defined 'solo friendly.'  He could have made that statement without being in the Beta of anything.

Hell, I drew the same conclusions -that EQ2 would be less 'solo friendly'-just from reading the EQ2 public boards.  EQ is a group-centric game. EQ2 is going to be a group-centric game with some soloability. There's nothing mystical or secret about that.  They're annoucing the reasons grouping doesn't suck in eq2 vs eqlive on a regular basis to support that notion.  It's not a bash, or a dig, it's an opinion based on the available information.

  He never said he was in the beta, or gave anything approcing non-public information, no need to go all apeshit.

Back on topic:  

Clerics are popular, yes.  Everyone and their brother has a cleric bot on a second or third account because they suck to play but are great to have around for rezzes or bot heals. (And yes, second and third accounts are now more common than people with single accounts.  The single-accounters have almost all quit in my experience.)  But since they're bots, that means they're secondary characters.. and folks aren't going to sit at their machines playing "hit the CH chain button.. NOW" on raids for a secondary character.

The mechanics of high-end raids in EQ have gotten to the point that you need x of class y to accomplish something.  Multiple extra tanks to 'tank mezz' un-mezzable boss guards.  Multiple extra enchanters to mezz the non-slowable boss guards.  Healers for the mezz tanks as well as the CH chain.  Backups for the MT, mezz tanks, enchanters, etc.  Clerics are the least fun of these classes because they're the most passive, as mentioned previously.

 So the demand at the high end is for people willing to sit there and do just that, on a character that can't fight on it's own at any other time, and by and large can be replaced by more diverse characters in XP groups.
Clerics were in demand for GoD for a while, since they do the best 'burst' healing, and all those mobs were tuned for level 70 characters. Since OOW has come out and increased the level cap again they'll probably be replaced by utility healers like druids and shaman again.

In addition, the number of raids at the near high-end are so numerous there's a lot of pressure for the small amount of clerics to be on almost every day. I knew of a few guilds that had mandatory (if you were online) raids at least 4 days a week.  That leads to even quicker burnout on this small player pool.

Because of this you'll probably see the primary players of them decrease in number yet again, and even more effort will be made by the high-end guild.

This is something I think EQ2 has done well to resolve. The smaller raid sizes means fewer numbers of required classes.  You'll not likely to ever have something as ridiculous as needing 6 mezzers, 8 tanks and 5 healers, because whoops you only have 5 'free' slots for actual damage dealers now.

   In addition,  IF they do it right you won't have a shortage of healers because of the archtype model.   This is something I'm really wanting to see in action.  It's a damn good idea, but I wonder if they can provide enough varieity between the different 'flavors' of classes while balancing them so they all can maintain their primary roles without anyone excelling.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: schild on October 01, 2004, 07:44:55 PM
Quote from: Merusk
He never said he was in the beta, or gave anything approcing non-public information, no need to go all apeshit.


As to neither confirm nor deny what you're saying - I'll just say this, step out of this little tiff, it's not one where you can make so much as a single point. :) Without further ado, carry on the speculative EQ2 issues.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Alkiera on October 01, 2004, 09:54:53 PM
As far as the soloability of CoH...
You need a group to do all of the task force missions, including the ones which let you respec your powers and enhancement slots.

They are adding missions which require a group, as there are apparently more than one thing which needs to be done simultaneously within the mission instance.

There are also 'trials', like Hamidon, etc, which require large groups.

If you think EQ2 is going to let you see more content solo than WoW...  *boggle*  Admittedly, I am not in EQ2 beta.  Still... I can't imagine they'll make the game THAT solo-centric.

--
Alkiera


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 02, 2004, 09:10:35 AM
Quote from: Ardent
Quote from: SirBruce
And I never even reached level 20.


Heehee! OK, I see what I'm dealing with now. No point in continuing this.


No point in continuing this, since I proved your statement wrong?

So what's your explanation now; that it's AFTER level 20 that the Elite quests become less common?

Quote

Six months from now, I will be curious to hear your opinions of trying to solo with a WoW priest, druid or shaman as compared to a EQ2 priest class. Should be a fun read.


I don't think you'll be curious at all.  I think you'll just want to backpedal again when you hear an answer you don't like.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 02, 2004, 09:17:00 AM
Quote from: Kairos
Quote from: SirBruce

Please do a search on the boards.  The subject has come up before and I've explained it before.  MMOGs should be like movie theatres or plays or concerts or sporting events... you can be entertained by them whether you go with a group of friends or if you go alone.


That's a nice sentiment and all, but it really doesn't work out that way. Movies and plays and concerts and sporting events are all passive forms of entertainment. Video games require active participation from the players. The game experience simply isn't going to be the same whether you're playing by yourself or with other people, no matter how hard to try to make it that way.


The average person would claim that playing video games is a lot more passive than many other activities, and would rank it just above, say, TV viewing for its couch-potatoeness.

However, your argument about participation is a red herring.  So what if true?  Why does this necessitate, therefore, grouping to access content?  You do a subtle switch on the argument by retermining it "the game experience".  But that's not in dispute.  I'm not denying that the experience of seeing a NFL game by yourself is different from seeing an NFL game with a group of your drunken buds.  But the CONTENT of the game is the same.  The players are the same and we see the same game.  To complete the analogy, in a MMOG if I go with my group of buddies, we should all see the same content, not access a different game we couldn't see before when we were by ourselves.

Quote

To make the game much more solo friendly would be to make an online single-player game, and what the hell is the point of that?


Because there's more forms of interacting with massive amounts of other people besides having them in your group and having to have them in your group in order to access content.  I want all those OTHER forms of interacting (except PvP, usually); I just don't want forced grouping in my RPG.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 02, 2004, 09:19:25 AM
Quote from: Alkiera
As far as the soloability of CoH...
You need a group to do all of the task force missions, including the ones which let you respec your powers and enhancement slots.

They are adding missions which require a group, as there are apparently more than one thing which needs to be done simultaneously within the mission instance.

There are also 'trials', like Hamidon, etc, which require large groups.


Yes.  Didn't I alrady say these things, when I admitted CoH wasn't perfect?

Nevertheless, this isn't a black-and-white thing.  On the spectrum of soloability, CoH is pretty far on the solo-friendly end, as opposed to, say, EQ1 which is pretty far on the other.

Quote

If you think EQ2 is going to let you see more content solo than WoW...  *boggle*  Admittedly, I am not in EQ2 beta.  Still... I can't imagine they'll make the game THAT solo-centric.


I don't think it will be solo-centric, but I think it will be less GROUP-CENTRIC than WoW will be.

Obviously, time will tell.  If it turns out EQ2 sucks for soloability as much as WoW did, then I'll just have to play Tabula Rasa or who knows what else.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 02, 2004, 09:25:02 AM
Quote from: Merusk

He was starting that in the future he wanted to hear Bruce back-up the implication that EQ2 would be more solo-friendly than WoW in the way Bruce has defined 'solo friendly.'  He could have made that statement without being in the Beta of anything.

Hell, I drew the same conclusions -that EQ2 would be less 'solo friendly'-just from reading the EQ2 public boards.  EQ is a group-centric game. EQ2 is going to be a group-centric game with some soloability. There's nothing mystical or secret about that.  They're annoucing the reasons grouping doesn't suck in eq2 vs eqlive on a regular basis to support that notion.  It's not a bash, or a dig, it's an opinion based on the available information.


But how do you come to that conclusion, when SOE has specifically said not so, that every class will be viable to solo, that they're making content for soloers, and that  they will have everything available for groups available for soloist?  Not to mention the fact that EQ2 is specifically designed to be much of what EQ1 is not, that since EQ1 is highly group-centric, don't you conclude therefore that EQ2 probably will not be?

Anyway, the point isn't to laud EQ2 over WoW; maybe it will suck too.  The point was that WoW wasn't solo-friendly, and that other MMOGs are more solo-friendly than WoW.  I think EQ2 is one of those, but only time will tell.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Sable Blaze on October 02, 2004, 09:27:25 AM
I'd expect soloability in EQ2 to be equivalent to what we've seen in EQOA. There's some, and some classes do it better than others, but don't count on hanging out in significant dungeons by your lonesome.

There were many things in EQOA I could do by myself (as a dark elven shadowknight), but many more I could not. Any dungeon was a huge risk. The numbers of mobs and the extremely fast respawn pretty much insured a group effort to accomplish anything.

It's a pretty good bet EQ2 will be similar.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 02, 2004, 09:31:50 AM
Again, what is the basis for your belief of a "pretty good bet"?  EQOA?  That doesn't seem to outweigh the developers own statements which contradict that conclusion.

I'm not trying to get anyone to break NDA here.  And again, I'm not claiming EQ2 will be perfect.  But better solo play than WoW?  Shore 'nuff.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Margalis on October 02, 2004, 10:41:29 AM
Whatever developers say, always turns out to be true. We all know that.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Ardent on October 02, 2004, 10:43:56 AM
Bruce,

I am not going to argue with your opinion of soloability in WoW, or any other game. That is your opinion, and you have a right to it. If a game does not provide the game experience you want, you don't have to play it. I don't have a problem with that.

The reason I "backed down" is because you made a false statement. I tried to correct that statement, and you called me a liar. I can't compete with that kind of illogical thought process.

You said:

Quote
When I was playing the stress test beta, about 20% of my quests were elite, and over half of those required grouping to accomplish at the assigned level.


Please provide a list of the quests you did between levels 1-20. There are websites you can go to that list all the quests by zone, this should be an easy task.

Then, place a mark by the ones that were elite.

If the ones that are maked elite in this list equal 20% of that list, I will say you are right and I am wrong.

But that's not going to happen, and anyone who has played WoW for more than week knows I'm right.

So please stop insulting me and backing up your arguments with lies. Thank you.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 02, 2004, 02:51:55 PM
Quote from: Ardent

You said:

Quote
When I was playing the stress test beta, about 20% of my quests were elite, and over half of those required grouping to accomplish at the assigned level.


Please provide a list of the quests you did between levels 1-20. There are websites you can go to that list all the quests by zone, this should be an easy task.

Then, place a mark by the ones that were elite.

If the ones that are maked elite in this list equal 20% of that list, I will say you are right and I am wrong.


Actually, no.  I only have to show that ONE of them was elite to show that you were wrong.  Let's review what you said:

Quote from: Ardent

From levels 1-20, you will probably do close to 100 quests, and exactly zero (0) of them will be elite.


Now, I assume you at least admit now that you were wrong when you said that?

[Edited]

Okay, I found the web site with the quest list (thotbot) but it doesn't show which are elite and which aren't.  Sorry.  It lists about 24 quests up to level 20 involved Elwynn Forest, and a few of those I recall were Elite.  Several more were Elite in Westfall, including the three quests involving the Mine where VanCleef is.  Again, about 20 quests, and 3-4 that are Elite... that's about 20%.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Merusk on October 02, 2004, 03:42:09 PM
Quote from: SirBruce
Quote from: Merusk

He was starting that in the future he wanted to hear Bruce back-up the implication that EQ2 would be more solo-friendly than WoW in the way Bruce has defined 'solo friendly.'  He could have made that statement without being in the Beta of anything.

Hell, I drew the same conclusions -that EQ2 would be less 'solo friendly'-just from reading the EQ2 public boards.  EQ is a group-centric game. EQ2 is going to be a group-centric game with some soloability. There's nothing mystical or secret about that.  They're annoucing the reasons grouping doesn't suck in eq2 vs eqlive on a regular basis to support that notion.  It's not a bash, or a dig, it's an opinion based on the available information.


But how do you come to that conclusion, when SOE has specifically said not so, that every class will be viable to solo, that they're making content for soloers, and that  they will have everything available for groups available for soloist?  Not to mention the fact that EQ2 is specifically designed to be much of what EQ1 is not, that since EQ1 is highly group-centric, don't you conclude therefore that EQ2 probably will not be?

Anyway, the point isn't to laud EQ2 over WoW; maybe it will suck too.  The point was that WoW wasn't solo-friendly, and that other MMOGs are more solo-friendly than WoW.  I think EQ2 is one of those, but only time will tell.


Now which definition of solo are we using, Bruce? The one where you can access all content on your own without ever having to group? That's not what the SOE designers meant when they said every class will be able to solo.

 What they meant was every class will be able to kill things for experience, and possibly loot (but not the best loot), without having to group.  This is being done in Eq2 in answer to the complaint in EQ1 that only a few classes  could kill things without others to support them after a certain level. (Warriors & Clerics being the most notable examples.) I think this is the definition the rest of us have been using when we speak of 'soloing.'  

Yeah, I'm sure they'll have solo content for quests, but so does WoW.  I don't think it's going to net you the best stuff, the same as WoW. And there WILL be some stuff that you can't do alone.  Dragons and raid instances, for example. Raids in EQ2 start as early as your teens, according to their FAQ.  (http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=9)
Now, maybe if you level beyond a certain point you can go back and do those instances solo. I don't think that's what you were talking about, though is it, Bruce, since you could do the same in WoW.

I also say EQ2 is still group oriented because they're doing stuff to encourage groups very strongly.  Xp from mobs killed is the same solo as in a group. Xp debit will be 'spread out' among group members if you die.  A death in eq2 means you get 1/6 the xp debit you'd otherwise take. Couple that with the first one and grouping is far, far better than soloing in terms of xp gain, and therefore leveling.

 None of the above is true in WoW, meaning doing things on your own is mostly preferred for XP. You don't get 1/2 to 1/6 the xp from a mob kill, and a death in a group is the same as a death alone. The difference being that a death alone is because YOU screwed up, not because someone else was asleep at the wheel.

I'm not down on EQ2, though A lot of people are because it's SOE, and SOE is "The Man."  I do know what 'Everquest' is, and nothing about it really screams 'Soloers paradise' for attaining Max level. (Again, the definition I think most of us mean when we say 'soloability') Sure, you'll be able to do it but it will take you forever and a day.  

EQ2 is being designed to remedy the problems people said they had with EQ1, and provide an Everquest experience to more casual players. The 'Everquest' experience is widely understood to be levels, loot & raids with character power dependent on equipment.  In EQ the best equipment comes from raid-type encounters which are all group-only experiences.

Yeah, sure, 'this isn't eq1'. It IS using the Everquest name, though, so some things are going to remain the same.  If nothing remained the same between EQ1, EQ:oa and EQ2 then they wouldn't all be called 'Everquest.' since that carries some additional, unplesant baggage. We're talking branding here though, so it's not just about the setting.

The ways I see EQ2 not being EQ1 isn't in radical difference in mechanics of levels, loot, etc.  It's in the gameplay and leveling mechanics itself.  SOE learned in EQ1 what people will bitch about in an MMO.  They, above all other companies producing upcoming MMOs, have the data to provide a treadmill that satisfies enough to not promote the widespread bitching.


EQ1 problem: People get antsy if there's too-long between dings.

EQ2 solution:  I said years ago they'd be better off splitting the XP & power achieved in each level in half and just calling it a 100 level game. I suspect EQ2 has done this.  Yeah this is pure speculation, but without seeing the whole game it'd be hard to know.  I expect the treadmill is the same length as eq1's original 50 levels, you just get rewarded more often.


EQ1 problem:  Complaints that each level doesn't provide anything beyond HPs.

EQ2 solution: It's been hinted here and elsewhere that you get more than this at each level in eq2.  EQ1 crapped out for melee characters at about level 30, after that nothing.  If they're smart they'll have incorporated some of the AA stuff as well as the usual powers for melee.  Spellcasters it's easy enough to spread 12 spells out over 6 levels instead of the traditional D&D "at level x+6 you get 12 new spells!" that EQ1 had.


Eq1 problem:  If I group, I lose experience. Soloing is preferred to grouping in terms of min/maxing your Xp rate. Killing higher level mobs doesn't fix this, since the mobs you'd have to kill would be far, far too powerful. (Though killing hordes of mid-blues in a good group was far superior to solo xp because the rate of kills made up for it.  The problem was keeping that optimal group together for a good length of time.)

EQ2 solution: Killing a mob solo gets you the same xp as killing it in a group. If the xp were balanced around solo xp gain rates, this would be great! I'll be willing to bet XP will be balanced around group gain rates, though.


Eq1 problem: Corpse runs suck. They do. A lot. The possibility of losing all your loot is horrible. So bad that even EQ1 has done away with it now.

Eq2 solution: Spawn with your items, lose some XP & stats are decreased for 3 days if you don't want to run back to your place of death.

That's just the tip of some of the changes, though.  But none of them change the core mechanics of what is 'Everquest.'  Levels, loot & raids with character power tied to equipment, and the best equipment is from raids.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 02, 2004, 03:53:31 PM
Quote from: Merusk

Now which definition of solo are we using, Bruce? The one where you can access all content on your own without ever having to group?


That's one end of the spectrum, yes.  The other end would be, of course, only group content.  The question is not whether EQ2 lies all the way at the solo end -- it does not -- but whether or not it's closer to the solo end than WoW.

Quote

 That's not what the SOE designers meant when they said every class will be able to solo.

 What they meant was every class will be able to kill things for experience, and possibly loot (but not the best loot), without having to group.  This is being done in Eq2 in answer to the complaint in EQ1 that only a few classes  could kill things without others to support them after a certain level. (Warriors & Clerics being the most notable examples.) I think this is the definition the rest of us have been using when we speak of 'soloing.'  


That's "part" of "soloing", but it's not the entire definition.  But yes, SOE saying such things tells you that EQ2 is moving towards that end of the spectrum.  "Killing things" counts as content.

Quote

Yeah, I'm sure they'll have solo content for quests, but so does WoW.  I don't think it's going to net you the best stuff, the same as WoW. And there WILL be some stuff that you can't do alone.


Again, no one is arguing that there won't be some group content.  The issue is how much group content relative to WoW, and how solo-friendly relative to WoW.

Quote

I also say EQ2 is still group oriented because they're doing stuff to encourage groups very strongly.


WoW is also encouraging groups very strongly.  Again, the question is how much one is encouraging it relative to the other, and relative to other MMOGs out there.

Quote

I'm not down on EQ2, though A lot of people are because it's SOE, and SOE is "The Man."  I do know what 'Everquest' is, and nothing about it really screams 'Soloers paradise' for attaining Max level. (Again, the definition I think most of us mean when we say 'soloability') Sure, you'll be able to do it but it will take you forever and a day.


Again, you completely miss the point of the debate.  "Soloers paradise" is not at issue.  Is WoW a "Soloers paradise"?  No.  Which is closer?  EQ II.

Quote

EQ2 is being designed to remedy the problems people said they had with EQ1, and provide an Everquest experience to more casual players.


And WoW has been largely described as being a copy of EQ1.

Quote

The 'Everquest' experience is widely understood to be levels, loot & raids with character power dependent on equipment.  In EQ the best equipment comes from raid-type encounters which are all group-only experiences.


That's the 'EverQuest 1' experience.  In EQ2, they are remeding specifically those things which made EQ1 popular, to appeal to those who aren't playing EQ1.  So you're actually arguing my case.

Quote

Yeah, sure, 'this isn't eq1'. It IS using the Everquest name, though, so some things are going to remain the same.  If nothing remained the same between EQ1, EQ:oa and EQ2 then they wouldn't all be called 'Everquest.' since that carries some additional, unplesant baggage. We're talking branding here though, so it's not just about the setting.


Branding has nothing to do with mechanics.  By this logic, UX:O was going to be a lot like UO... but it wasn't.  And they specifically said it wasn't, in the same way EQ2 has been specifically said not to be the same as EQ1.

[Speculation about EQ2 vs. EQ1 mechanics deleted, as they are not relevant and are without foundation.]

Quote

That's just the tip of some of the changes, though.  But none of them change the core mechanics of what is 'Everquest.'  Levels, loot & raids with character power tied to equipment, and the best equipment is from raids.


And none of those are about soloability per se except raids.  EQ II is less raid-centric, more solo-friendly.

Bruce


Title: Re: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: El Gallo on October 02, 2004, 06:28:20 PM
Quote from: jpark

I think your position confuses me.   In EQ clerics remain one of the classes in greatest demand - imo - which if you agree does not fit the statistic you are referring to above.


These two propositions:
1.  Clerics are the most played class
2.  Guilds are desperate for more clerics

don't contradict one another.   Your could have triple the number of clerics that you do of any other class in your guild, and the most effective way to increase the power of your guild would still be "add more clerics."


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Nebu on October 03, 2004, 01:05:39 AM
My guess is that there are so many clerics due to people having multiple accounts.  This is also the case in DAoC.  People have clerics for when they want to do small scale stuff, but few people actively play a cleric as their main character.  I played a cleric for 2 years in EQ and I always could find groups if I wanted them.  When I played, my best friend was an enchanter... the two of us could hunt just about anywhere and pickup the remaining team quite easily.  

I chalk up the high number of clerics to extra accounts with the majority not playing them very often.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Ardent on October 03, 2004, 10:02:05 AM
Quote from: SirBruce
Quote from: Ardent

From levels 1-20, you will probably do close to 100 quests, and exactly zero (0) of them will be elite.


Now, I assume you at least admit now that you were wrong when you said that?


This statement is still correct ... for Horde characters.

Elwynn Forest is the only area of the game I haven't played in, because I never play human characters (I play a human every day in real life, why would I want to play one in a game?)

So ... I am willing to amend my statement to be more accurate:

From levels 1-20, you will probably do close to 100 quests, and exactly zero (0) of the elite quests are required. Elite quests from 1-20 are rare (nowhere NEAR 20% of your total quest count) and a hardcore soloer could easily skip them and do the dozens of alternate quests available, and come back and do the elite quest solo when he has achieved the sufficient level.

Post 20+, elite quests become more prevalent, and yes, encourages forced grouping.

Quote from: SirBruce
Again, about 20 quests, and 3-4 that are Elite... that's about 20%.


Nobody playing WoW is only doing 1 quest per level.

Quote from: SirBruce
And WoW has been largely described as being a copy of EQ1.


And EQ2 isn't?

(And before anyone freaks out at that last question, it is being posed in the spirit that the SEQUEL to a game is likely to be similar to the original game, I am making no judgements, casting no aspersions, and revealing nothing that approaches an NDA breakage. Anyone reading the EQ2 marketing materials on the SOE website can easily assume that EQ2 is very similar to EQ1, with dramatically improved graphics and tweaked game mechanics.)


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 03, 2004, 10:39:39 AM
Quote from: Ardent

So ... I am willing to amend my statement to be more accurate:

From levels 1-20, you will probably do close to 100 quests, and exactly zero (0) of the elite quests are required. Elite quests from 1-20 are rare (nowhere NEAR 20% of your total quest count) and a hardcore soloer could easily skip them and do the dozens of alternate quests available, and come back and do the elite quest solo when he has achieved the sufficient level.


Er, no, your amended statement doesn't at all reflect what you said about about Human quests being different, and it's still incorrect.  By the same logic, NO quests at all are required to play the game.  But that is not only silly, but it completely misses the point of the discussion, which is about accessible content.

Quote

Post 20+, elite quests become more prevalent, and yes, encourages forced grouping.


Thank you.  So we agree now, WoW is not solo-friendly, and some 20% of human quests up to level 20 are elite quests, many of which pretty much require groups at the levels they are given.

Quote

Quote from: SirBruce
Again, about 20 quests, and 3-4 that are Elite... that's about 20%.


Nobody playing WoW is only doing 1 quest per level.


That's per area.  Up to level 20 you'll probably primarily focus on questing in, what, 6 different areas/zones?

Quote

Quote from: SirBruce
And WoW has been largely described as being a copy of EQ1.


And EQ2 isn't?


No, it isn't.  That's exactly what people have been trying to tell you, but aparrently you aren't listening.

Quote

Anyone reading the EQ2 marketing materials on the SOE website can easily assume that EQ2 is very similar to EQ1, with dramatically improved graphics and tweaked game mechanics.)


You're completely wrong.  If you read the marketing materials, the only conclusion to draw is that EQ2 is very dissimilar to EQ1, with very different game mechanics.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Ardent on October 03, 2004, 12:08:32 PM
You like to argue about games you haven't played much or haven't played at all. This isn't adding anything to my life, and it's just annoying everyone reading this, so truce Bruce (hey, that rhymed!).

You'll probably follow that up with some smarmy comment about me backing down, which is fine. Life goes on. I'm beginning to think that the reason you like soloing so much is that nobody wants to group with you.

As for all your conjecture about EQ2:

If you're playing EQ2, you're breaking NDA.

If you're not playing EQ2, you're arguing from a position of ignorance, and I don't know how you can be so adamant about how the game works.

Now I'm going to go practice piano, which I find relaxing.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 03, 2004, 12:58:16 PM
I don't have to play WoW much to discern how solo-friendly it is.  I played it for a week, I relayed my findings.  You claimed those results were not true, and then later retracted your statement, at least partially.  The remainder of your objections are unfounded, and your comparisons to EQ2 fail to be verified by EQ2's own public information; no NDA-breaking required.

So, we agree that WoW isn't solo-friendly.

We disagree if EQ2 is more solo-friendly than WoW, but when we debated this, I had facts from WoW and EQ2 to support my position, whereas you had falsehoods.

That about sums it up.  Enjoy your piano; I'm going to go back to playing Fable.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: MrHat on October 03, 2004, 02:49:20 PM
Quote from: SirBruce
I don't have to play WoW much to discern how solo-friendly it is.  I played it for a week, I relayed my findings.  You claimed those results were not true, and then later retracted your statement, at least partially.  The remainder of your objections are unfounded, and your comparisons to EQ2 fail to be verified by EQ2's own public information; no NDA-breaking required.
Bruce


How can Ardent tell us which games to like...

...when he doesn't even know where he stands on the issues?


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: jpark on October 03, 2004, 04:47:18 PM
Because I enjoy the power of a healing class if EQ2 has "solved" the healer problem - WoW has not imo.

I gather the Priest remains unrivaled in his healing ability in WoW.  If so, he might enjoy the same position clerics did in EQ, and perhaps unlike EQ2 - great political power.

That's my conundrum.  Time and time again the easiest - casual player friendly path to power for me has been a healer.  WoW looks vulnerable to this strategy - but EQ2 may not be.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Murgos on October 03, 2004, 07:57:29 PM
So someone register a gimmick account and spill the beans on EQ2 already.  I've never seen this community so uptight over an NDA before.  Generally, people around here are all to eager to dish or cheer the next big thing.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Ardent on October 03, 2004, 09:05:44 PM
Quote from: MrHat
How can Ardent tell us which games to like...

...when he doesn't even know where he stands on the issues?


First, I voted in FAVOR of the war in Azeroth, now I'm telling you the war in Azeroth was a mistake? Can we afford to have a flip flopper like Ardent with his finger on the button?? Think of the children!

Soloed my tauren shaman from level 19 to 22 tonight, no sweat. A really fun healer/hybrid class. But the female tauren models are just laughably ugly.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Margalis on October 03, 2004, 11:05:55 PM
I didn't see anything about HOW EQ2 is solo friendly, other than "the devs say it is."

The only piece of actual info you guys managed to produce on this page is that WoW XP is split for groups and EQ2 isn't, which clearly is a point in favor of WoW. There was NO point in favor of EQ2, as far as I could tell.

Solo-ability really is about XP more than anything else. You can solo in any game, as long as you are willing to put up with a much much slower advancement rate. If the XP largely favors groups, the game is not solo friendly - the end.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: AOFanboi on October 04, 2004, 01:34:09 AM
Quote from: Ardent
If you're playing EQ2, you're breaking NDA.

If you're not playing EQ2, you're arguing from a position of ignorance, and I don't know how you can be so adamant about how the game works.

Well, that's the catch-22 isn't it? Only people not in the EQ2 beta can discuss the EQ2 beta in public, and have to trust the published information  to be correct, or make assumptions based on SOE's blotchy history.

In fact, you cannot be in the EQ2 beta either, because you seem to be discussing EQ2 in a public forum. How are you not just as much in "a position of ignorance" as SirBruce? Why should we trust your statements more than his?


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Soukyan on October 04, 2004, 04:37:04 AM
Meh. Myst IV is out now and is far more intriguing than any of the lame, upcoming MMOGs. ;)


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: El Gallo on October 04, 2004, 08:00:10 AM
For powergamers: in WoW, the fastest way to level 1-60 is probably to solo.  Maybe duo.  That might change, but right now, the self-sufficiency of each class and the lack of any real group xp bonus means that grouping pretty much only slows you down.  The only advantage of grouping is access to better gear in the harder dungeons.  However, you pick up all the gear you need to solo while soloing.  Even if you want to have l33t gear at the end of the line, the best path is probably to solo to 60 and then hit the second-to-last dungeon to gear up for the last one, rather than gearing up in every dungeon along the progression path.  Which is sad in a way, because the dungeons are for the most part well done.  But they are hard and not on the efficient path to th echeese, so they'll probably be ghost towns.

Once you hit the level cap, it's a different game.  If you want to be the uber raider, you'll probably have to join a guild and, well, raid.  If you want to follow the PvP path, you will probably need a guild of some sort too.  As a max-level solo player (who has farmed all the soloable content) you are probably looking at alts, the life of a trader, or the solo PK I guess.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: kemmyn on October 04, 2004, 08:26:50 AM
just wanted to point out (and i am not in beta, i read this on the EQ2 forum) that on Newbie Isle, where you learn the mechanics of the game, there is a "raid" mob at level 4-5.  This mob will not be able to be killed by 1 person.  A group will be required.  

Thus by level 5, before you get out of the "nursery", Bruce's definition of "soloable" fails.  He wants a game that anything a group can do, a solo player can do.  Keep looking.  

I don't know what marketing material he's reading, but it's sure not the stuff being published by SOE.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Merusk on October 04, 2004, 08:36:57 AM
I think I figured out Bruce's argument.  He's arguing % of consumable content, not total ability to level.

Fine, EQ2 will win if you're looking at straight %.  NDA breakers I've seen said they'd done "Around 90" quests by the time they hit level 10.  WoW took *maybe* 20-25 quests to get my NE to 10.  Pure % of quest content, sure I'll agree EQ2 will beat WOW. Though I'll bet it will be because it'll take so damn many quests to level up in EQ2, though.  You can't do 90 quests in a short leveling curve like WOW had.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: HaemishM on October 04, 2004, 08:55:27 AM
Quote from: Murgos
So someone register a gimmick account and spill the beans on EQ2 already.  I've never seen this community so uptight over an NDA before.  Generally, people around here are all to eager to dish or cheer the next big thing.


We aren't going to be breaking NDA's all wily-nily on this site. Both schild and I agree that the site would go downhill in a hurry if we started doing that.

Devs would stop coming, posting or even talking to us, which for whatever that's worth, is a bad thing. I personally enjoy the fact that guys like Lum, Raph and MahrinSkel will come and talk to us, even when I feel they are wrong. I'm not going to baby them, but I appreciate their input.

Also, when you start breaking NDA's, you attract hordes of fanbois and anti-fanbois, both of whom flock to your sight to find out more. And they start posting with agendas. The anti-fanbois want to point to the NDA breakage and say "SEE THIS GAME WILL SUCK!@!1!!" and the fanbois want to point to it and say "SEEE! THIS GAME WILL R0Xx0Rr!!@_@!1" This ain't the motherfucking Vault.

Finally, I'm hearing a lot of motherfuckers on this thread talking about games for which they have NO knowledge whatsoever, i.e. EQ2.

You cannot know how solo-friendly EQ2 is or isn't if you haven't played it. And you haven't played it, because if you have, you're breaking NDA and need to shut the fuck up. Page 2 of this thread was particularly painful. Stop being retarded.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: blindy on October 04, 2004, 08:58:03 AM
Quote from: Ardent


This statement is still correct ... for Horde characters.


I realize I'm seriously late to this conversation, but there are elite quests for Horde pre-20.  Whether they can be done pre-20, I have no clue, since I haven't tried them, but my little undead priest got them assigned, and some of them are yellow at 16. I have one in Pyrewood in Silverpines (link to thottbot  (http://www.thottbot.com/?q=787), though it's not marked as elite), and there's a couple more in Wailing Caverns (which is apparently an instance, I haven't been in it) that I got assigned in The Barrens or Thunder Bluff.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: El Gallo on October 04, 2004, 09:41:20 AM
FYI, here is your non-NDA-breaking information on EQ2 soloing, which comes from the Moorgard Index, a compilation of Moorgard (EQ2 PR guy, formerly of Mobhunter before that site became a complete joke) posts on public forums:
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=186586#186586

Highlights:
Quote

Soloing won't provide all the rewards that grouping will, because our goal is to encourage grouping. If it makes you sleep better at night, think of soloing as the base exp and that grouping gives you a big bonus.

Grouping is the focus of our game. We agree that everyone should have the opportunity to solo on occasion, but EQ2 is a social game, and we want the mechanics to reinforce that idea.

What we are intending to limit is what soloing entails. When you have certain classes that can solo content that is designed for a group of players, it creates a problem. This has surfaced time and again in EQ, where someone uses a loophole to skirt around intended limitations. That destroys balance, especially when you have lots of other classes that can't solo at all.
We aren't going to design some classes for soloing and others for grouping. All our classes are designed for grouping. Again, that helps maintain game balance

Keep in mind that because there is less inherent risk in soloing (since the player has control over virtually all variables), the rewards will also be lower, both in terms of experience and loot. We can tune those rewards accordingly at any point.

Our goal is a relatively simple one: we don't want soloers being able to consume content that was intended for a full group with greater efficiency than the group can. This problem surfaced in EQ quite often, and necessitated class and zone changes to limit the effectiveness of such techniques.
We just want to prevent the problem from the ground up.

we want to making grouping more attractive than soloing. Why? Because they're competing playstyles, and the whole design of our game is built around grouping as a means to experience the depth of our world. We don't want soloing to provide the same or better rewards in the long run than grouping.

with EverQuest II, we're designing a game that emphasizes grouping. People will be able to advance their characters and obtain loot by soloing, but the potential rewards for a group of players will be greater.

Soloing will generally be more available [than in EQ1], because it will be something that anyone can do at any time. However, those who played one of the few classes in EQ that were able to achieve solo experience on par with the amount a group could obtain will not find that same ability in our game.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 04, 2004, 10:09:37 AM
Yeah, you can find similar comments from the EQ2 team about how there is raid and group-specific content.

Having played WoW, my impression is still that EQ2 will be more solo-friendly than WoW.  It may turn out to not be.  In which case, I'll go back to playing City of Heroes or AC2, or I'll go play Tabula Rasa or Vanguard or Imperator or Face of Mankind or who knows what else.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: MrHat on October 04, 2004, 10:10:28 AM
Quote from: El Gallo
FYI, here is your non-NDA-breaking information on EQ2 soloing, which comes from the Moorgard Index, a compilation of Moorgard (EQ2 PR guy, formerly of Mobhunter before that site became a complete joke) posts on public forums:
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=186586#186586

Highlights:
Quote

Soloing won't provide all the rewards that grouping will, because our goal is to encourage grouping. If it makes you sleep better at night, think of soloing as the base exp and that grouping gives you a big bonus.

Grouping is the focus of our game. We agree that everyone should have the opportunity to solo on occasion, but EQ2 is a social game, and we want the mechanics to reinforce that idea.

What we are intending to limit is what soloing entails. When you have certain classes that can solo content that is designed for a group of players, it creates a problem. This has surfaced time and again in EQ, where someone uses a loophole to skirt around intended limitations. That destroys balance, especially when you have lots of other classes that can't solo at all.
We aren't going to design some classes for soloing and others for grouping. All our classes are designed for grouping. Again, that helps maintain game balance

Keep in mind that because there is less inherent risk in soloing (since the player has control over virtually all variables), the rewards will also be lower, both in terms of experience and loot. We can tune those rewards accordingly at any point.

Our goal is a relatively simple one: we don't want soloers being able to consume content that was intended for a full group with greater efficiency than the group can. This problem surfaced in EQ quite often, and necessitated class and zone changes to limit the effectiveness of such techniques.
We just want to prevent the problem from the ground up.

we want to making grouping more attractive than soloing. Why? Because they're competing playstyles, and the whole design of our game is built around grouping as a means to experience the depth of our world. We don't want soloing to provide the same or better rewards in the long run than grouping.

with EverQuest II, we're designing a game that emphasizes grouping. People will be able to advance their characters and obtain loot by soloing, but the potential rewards for a group of players will be greater.

Soloing will generally be more available [than in EQ1], because it will be something that anyone can do at any time. However, those who played one of the few classes in EQ that were able to achieve solo experience on par with the amount a group could obtain will not find that same ability in our game.


Point Gallo.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: El Gallo on October 04, 2004, 10:14:45 AM
Quote from: SirBruce
Hardly NDA breaking


That's probably why I said it was "non-NDA-breaking" and noted that it had all been posted on public forums.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: SirBruce on October 04, 2004, 10:16:06 AM
Quote from: El Gallo
Quote from: SirBruce
Hardly NDA breaking


That's probably why I said it was "non-NDA-breaking" and noted that it had all been posted on public forums.


Fair enough; I edited my post.

Bruce


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Ardent on October 04, 2004, 10:45:03 AM
Getting back to the original question posed by jpark, I really don't know if there is a solution to the "problem" of healer classes with the current methodology of RPG combat.

The hero has a pool of hit points. Creature hits hero, points go down. Hero needs points to go back up, and the quickest way is to heal. The paradigm has existed as long as D&D and wargaming has existed.

Maybe the way to solve the problem is to create a new combat paradigm, that breaks away from the hit point loss/gain model that all the major MMORPGs use. ((shrugs))


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: jpark on October 05, 2004, 08:02:31 PM
Quote from: Ardent
Getting back to the original question posed by jpark, I really don't know if there is a solution to the "problem" of healer classes with the current methodology of RPG combat.

The hero has a pool of hit points. Creature hits hero, points go down. Hero needs points to go back up, and the quickest way is to heal. The paradigm has existed as long as D&D and wargaming has existed.

Maybe the way to solve the problem is to create a new combat paradigm, that breaks away from the hit point loss/gain model that all the major MMORPGs use. ((shrugs))


Or every class has the ability to group heal.  There is no healer.  Since group heals provide relatively little benefit for damage focused on a single character or during AoE attacks - everyone would help with the healing.

The middle ground of this idea could be EQ2 - make the healing that was the provedence of the cleric in EQ  fully available to other classes  (shaman, druid etc.).


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: eldaec on October 11, 2004, 12:12:37 PM
CoH already solved the healing problem imo.

Healing classes spend most of their time using buffing/debuffing skills that require activity and judgement rather than healing.

When they do heal most of them do so in odd ways, and you can't expect to just heal-tank your way through an encounter. Espeicially since every ability that every character has is on a recast timer. (The recast-timer-on-everything is a damn fine way to stop any class feeling like a one trick pony)

The EQ2 solution (every priest will heal equally but in different ways) is exacrtly what EQ, DAOC, and everything else promised. Maybe they'll get it right, maybe they won't. But the approach is not at all new.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Trippy on October 11, 2004, 03:23:40 PM
Quote from: jpark
The middle ground of this idea could be EQ2 - make the healing that was the provedence of the cleric in EQ  fully available to other classes  (shaman, druid etc.).

Healing was hardly the sole providence of Clerics in EQ when I was playing (pre-PoP) except for one critical spell -- Complete Heal -- which I'll talk about more later. In the day-to-day single group exp grind, Clerics were hardly necessary except, as Romp noted in the second post in this thread, when things go bad and resses are needed. If you just look at the different heal spells a class has and compare healers that way, you aren't looking at the full picture. Yes Clerics can heal the most HPs by far in a single spell with CH (which the EQ devs admitted long ago is broken), however Shamans have slow which means people are taking much less damage and therefore need fewer heals, and Druids have regen which means if you are smart and spread aggro and damage around you won't miss CH either. Shamans and Druids could also dish out a lot more damage in a group (excepting undead mobs) which meant mobs died faster which meant they did less damage which meant less healing was needed.

In fact the original "vision" for healers in EQ was a pretty balanced one as long as you weren't just being a n00b and comparing HPs healed. Unfortunately as character HP and mob damage inflation took off, the value of CH increased far beyond its original intention leading to CH rotations and the like making Clerics essential for uber encounters. Shamans and Druids were still useful during raids as healers, however, if you were tackling AE mobs (e.g. dragons) since you needed people to heal the non-MTs, assuming they weren't hiding behind world geometry when the AE went off.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Merusk on October 11, 2004, 04:53:38 PM
Quote from: Trippy

Healing was hardly the sole providence of Clerics in EQ when I was playing (pre-PoP) except for one critical spell -- Complete Heal -- which I'll talk about more later. In the day-to-day single group exp grind, Clerics were hardly necessary except, as Romp noted in the second post in this thread, when things go bad and resses are needed. If you just look at the different heal spells a class has and compare healers that way, you aren't looking at the full picture. Yes Clerics can heal the most HPs by far in a single spell with CH (which the EQ devs admitted long ago is broken), however Shamans have slow which means people are taking much less damage and therefore need fewer heals, and Druids have regen which means if you are smart and spread aggro and damage around you won't miss CH either. Shamans and Druids could also dish out a lot more damage in a group (excepting undead mobs) which meant mobs died faster which meant they did less damage which meant less healing was needed.


PoP changed all this, though.  PoP mobs did ASSLOADS of damage per combat round, so sustained healing was far inferior to 'burst' healing like a CH spell.  Druids and Shamen had wimpy little 1000 point heals they'd have to spam, while clerics had that old bugger, CH.

  Slow meant little if you were still taking 1000 point hits (dual 500s) every combat round, and regen was a joke vs this damage. (Still is, even after they DOUBLED the # of HPs/ tick of all regen spells. It's a downtime reducer, not a way to make up for gimped heals)

 In response,  Druids & Shamen got their own versions of the CH spell. Druids got 2 versions, one which is capped at 3k hps and the other at 4.6k hps. Shamen's CH was capped at 2k hps.  But they got a nice heal-over-time which was good for casters, but not MT unless they were able to mitigate a good deal of damage. All the heals were capped at 75% of the target's total hps so even if they had 2k hps that needed healing, you could only heal 1.5k.

Now, yeah, people evolved and adapted to this, but clerics were still preferred for a good while. (Until PoP spells had 'trickled down' enough to matter to more than the upper 1%) But the 'different but equal' balancing act that EQ keeps trying to play with it's healing hasn't really worked out well over the long term.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Sky on October 12, 2004, 08:18:32 AM
I always like these gentle reminders of how I made the right choice getting the hell out of EQ years ago. Thanks.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Nebu on October 12, 2004, 08:35:57 AM
Quote from: Sky
I always like these gentle reminders of how I made the right choice getting the hell out of EQ years ago. Thanks.


Couldn't agree more.  I left EQ shortly after the release of Velious and never looked back.  I still remember standing in Firiona Vie and giving away everything that I could from my level 60 cleric (the level cap at that time).  When all the newbies had my gear, I deleted each character and closed the account.  I also find it funny that I've gone back and given most other games a second chance... not EQ.  It became to clear what the cycle of this game was and I just didn't want to get caught up in it.

As for the topic-at-hand, I think that the issue is that clerics were given so few unique abilities that really distinguished them.  Druids and shaman could heal almost as well and they had more utility.  Faster travel, more damage in combat, and just more group friendly.  If game designers really want to follow the class model, they need to make the tradeoffs a bit more balanced.  Having complete heal and a good rez was nice, but both skills were lacking in the "fun" department.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: jpark on October 15, 2004, 09:29:13 PM
Okay - now that the NDA is lifted - start talk'n people! )

1.  Are the healers actually equal - or does the Templar / Inquisitor reign?
2.  How useful is group heal vs. single target heal?
3.  Is there a demand for more than one healer in the group?  Are healers still rate limiting in group formation?

EDIT:  could we move this thread to the EQ2 beta section?  This would avoid starting a new thread there on healing.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: Koyasha on October 16, 2004, 08:17:35 AM
Quote from: Merusk
while clerics had that old bugger, CH.


I didn't play a cleric full-time, but one of my characters was a cleric around mid to high 50's during PoP's day, and more often, I'd two-box a friend's level 65 cleric.  CH was about as useful as a warhammer against a mosquito; by the time you swing it, the mosquito's gone.  CH was all but useless when the tank would die 6 seconds into the fight with 4 seconds still left on your CH casting time.  Against an average XP mob.  If you had a druid or a shaman to toss little heals in the meantime, it was ok, but far and away, PoP revolved around the fast heal.

Not that clerics didn't have those...they pretty much had the monopoly on them.  But the point is that CH wasn't the spell that was keeping clerics on top during WoW, it was the faster spells...I can't even remember their names anymore, jeez.  But the 900 HP, 1.5 second heal, and the 2000 exp 4.5 second heal (I think I remember the HP/time correctly, or pretty close).  Also depended heavily on cleric AA's that increased the healing power of these spells, and focus items that did the same, so clerics were doing ~1500 with the quick spell and over 3000 with the slower one.  Druids' biggest heal was only a bit over the 4.5 second cleric heal on HP, and took a full 10 seconds to cast.

As for the healing 'problem' in general...  In a way, I'm fond of the idea that in-battle healing is emergency in nature, and you're expected to get through the fight without casting heals.  After the fight is over, you heal up and get the next mob.  I'm curious as to how a game would work designed around that idea.  Buffs and damage mitigation type spells (AD&D type Stoneskin, for example) would be an interesting replacement for actual heals in combat.  If the Cleric class in this hypothetical game only owned two (or some very limited quantity) spells - one early on, one later - that would function while in-combat, and the rest were extremely efficient, but completely non-functional whenever the target is on something's agro list, but instead had useful other spells, it might turn out rather interesting new strategies.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: El Gallo on October 16, 2004, 09:23:08 AM
There is next to no difference between any of the healing classes, or any of the other classes within archetypes, in EQ2.  The game basically has 4 classes.  Maybe 5.


Title: EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?
Post by: jpark on October 17, 2004, 10:39:20 AM
Quote from: El Gallo
There is next to no difference between any of the healing classes, or any of the other classes within archetypes, in EQ2.  The game basically has 4 classes.  Maybe 5.


Looking at this link there do appear to be significant differences among the healing subclasses:

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=priest&message.id=9255

My conclusion is that with an eye to eventual raiding, the the overloaded healing demands Priests currently experience in game - that Clerics - specifically Templars - will be in demand.  I am not in Beta - so my comment is based on the below.

This comment was helpful:

To sum up, clerics have additional health buffs, while druids buff power and shamans both (I assume for less, though). Clerics mostly heal using spells that heal the target when they get hit, while druids use regens and shamans prevent damage with wards. A lot of spells are activated when people get hit, or enemies hit a target. For clerics, they heal the group with instant heals, for druids, they add regen, for shamans they provoke wards. Finally, clerics get trauma debuffs, while druids get damage shields and shamans slows.
 
On particular subclasses within Cleric, Druid and Shamans:

"Now, the difference between a templar and an inquisitor : mostly, the spells that are activated when an enemy dies will heal the group for templars, while damaging the remaining enemies for inquisitors. The inquisitor will be more specialized in debuffs and damage, while the templar gets more kinds of buffs.
 
For wardens and furies - wardens use cold nukes, furies use heat or magic. Wardens can buff the group's attack, while furies buff single targets and add damage components to the group attacks. Finally, wardens can evac a group, while furies can gice group invisibility.
 
For mystics and defilers - mystics use cold DoTs, defilers disease. Mystics can buff power and noxious mitigation, while defilers are more focussed on debuffing, and indirectly using the enemie's powers to heal themselves or the group. Defilers get more DoTs with secondary effects, while mystics mostly get nukes and effect spells."

Still going over this information:

"Shaman wards prevent damage, and are applied before armor is checked. That means that while a tank is warded, they effectively have no AC at all - they can still parry, dodge, and such, but the incoming damage is applied directly to the ward without any armor reduction
 
Cleric triggered healing heals after damage is applied, therefore if the player is hit with a massive nuke that would just barely kill him, the heal would kick in after the player is already dead... which won't I believe bring them back to life. OTOH, the healing effect being applied after the fact allows armor mitigation to have its full effect. I've also seen the cleric triggered heal go off when someone is DoTed, and I believe DoTs just ignore wards.
 
Net effect: Shaman are probably slightly better healers for brawlers and other lightly armored types. Clerics are slightly better healers for plate tanks."

Things that strike me so far:

- Adding an extra attack to the party (Inquisitor)
- SoW, a run speed buff, (Druid and Shaman)
- AoE stun (Templar)
- Aggro reduction (Templar)
- Group Evacuation (Warden)
- Group Invisibility (Fury)
- Slow (Shaman)