Forums » The Shaman

Anyone else thinks Shaman should to be a class that can res?

    • 133 posts
    December 13, 2015 1:20 PM PST

    I mean, in EQ it was the cleric, and I think none of us really griped with that because that's just how it was. But when you think about it, if Shaman are the ones that can communicate with spirits, channel their power, and see the past/future, shouldn't the be the ones to call the spirit back to the body? I mean, I would think clerics actually considered the act of resurecting the dead unholy, and in conflict with the wishes of the gods. I would think clerics would say only the gods should grant such power, and mortals attempting such things are overstepping their place!

    Just a thought.


    This post was edited by Arksien at December 13, 2015 1:20 PM PST
    • Moderator
    • 9082 posts
    December 13, 2015 4:27 PM PST

    Yes, I also think it would be nice, in VG all of the healers rezzed (and healed well) and a lot of VGs gameplay and combat was an evolution of EQ's and it worked very well. If Shaman are going to be taken as serious healers, they will need to be able to perform critic roles like healing and rezzing just as well as their healing counterparts. This is my personal opinion however and not an official stance. ;)

    • 2189 posts
    December 13, 2015 7:14 PM PST

    I wouldn't mind if a Shaman could rez, but a Cleric should have a better rez spell.  Where as a Cleric might eventually get a 100% xp resurection spell, a Shaman should cap out much lower.  Our expanded utility (buffs, dots, hots, debuffs) more than make up for a lower powered resurection.  I do not want the Shaman to just be a Cleric in different armor.  I'll take the broad utility of a shaman over the narrrow specilization of a cleric.

    • Moderator
    • 9082 posts
    December 13, 2015 8:12 PM PST

    Vandraad said:

    I wouldn't mind if a Shaman could rez, but a Cleric should have a better rez spell.  Where as a Cleric might eventually get a 100% xp resurection spell, a Shaman should cap out much lower.  Our expanded utility (buffs, dots, hots, debuffs) more than make up for a lower powered resurection.  I do not want the Shaman to just be a Cleric in different armor.  I'll take the broad utility of a shaman over the narrrow specilization of a cleric.

    I didn't mean for Shaman to be a copy/paste of the Clerics by any means, I am one of the biggest opponents for that type of class building, but a healer class should be able to heal and rez just as well as the other healers, their differences would be broken down in other ways like utility, survivability, buffing, debuffing etc.

    • 157 posts
    December 13, 2015 11:12 PM PST

    Yeah, I wouldn't mind if Pantheon would lean more to Vanguard than Everquest in that regard. Let healer be on par with each other. Different mechanics for sure, just like it was in Vanguard - you couldn't say a bloodmage was the same as a disciple just with different armor for sure! 

    • Moderator
    • 9082 posts
    December 14, 2015 3:17 AM PST

    Duffy said:

    Yeah, I wouldn't mind if Pantheon would lean more to Vanguard than Everquest in that regard. Let healer be on par with each other. Different mechanics for sure, just like it was in Vanguard - you couldn't say a bloodmage was the same as a disciple just with different armor for sure! 

    Exactly and that is a great example, completely opposite ends of the scale yet both could do their job and heal very well and both were always wanted in groups/raids :)

    • 250 posts
    December 14, 2015 4:55 AM PST

    Duffy said:

    Yeah, I wouldn't mind if Pantheon would lean more to Vanguard than Everquest in that regard. Let healer be on par with each other. Different mechanics for sure, just like it was in Vanguard - you couldn't say a bloodmage was the same as a disciple just with different armor for sure! 

    So what would be the point of all the different classes if they all could heal the same. Its like in WoW when Druids tank better than warriors or Pallidens were better healers then Clerics. (Havent played in a while so don't know if thats changed but it was the case when i stopped).

    In EQ the Cleric was top dog for heals and Rez + Armor. The others were part time healers because they could do other things a the cleric couldn't, so were also useful in a group. You could have a couple of part timers working together and also provided all the extra spells that a Cleric couldn't.

    If they were on Par I would see a Cleric not getting a group if a Shaman can heal just as good, as well as Haste/buff etc (if they were simular to EQ Shaman).

     

     

    • 157 posts
    December 14, 2015 5:44 AM PST
    @Boulda,
    well obviously it is not meant so that the cleric can only heal and brings absolutely nothing else to the table and the shaman can heal the same but brings also buffs.
    Who says that? Nobody really. Why shouldn't a cleric buff something also? Like good hp buffs? With shaman buffing something else, also useful?

    Some really seem overly concerned that there might be another healer with whom they have to compete. And? So do the tanks or damage dealer. Having only ONE "real" tank and healer out of 12 and more! classes would really make the others insignificant because there are only so much buffs a class can have.

    I really don't get it. Is this class envy? I really don't understand at all. Especially since Vanguard showed how this can be done. What is your concern?

    • 2189 posts
    December 14, 2015 8:28 AM PST

    Kilsin said:

    Vandraad said:

    I wouldn't mind if a Shaman could rez, but a Cleric should have a better rez spell.  Where as a Cleric might eventually get a 100% xp resurection spell, a Shaman should cap out much lower.  Our expanded utility (buffs, dots, hots, debuffs) more than make up for a lower powered resurection.  I do not want the Shaman to just be a Cleric in different armor.  I'll take the broad utility of a shaman over the narrrow specilization of a cleric.

    I didn't mean for Shaman to be a copy/paste of the Clerics by any means, I am one of the biggest opponents for that type of class building, but a healer class should be able to heal and rez just as well as the other healers, their differences would be broken down in other ways like utility, survivability, buffing, debuffing etc.

    And the EQ1 shaman did exactly that. Our heals were smaller than the cleric but when you add in Slow on the mob, Haste on all the melee, STR/AGI/DEX/HP buffs on the entire group plus solid Heal over Time (HoT) spells, our 'smaller heals' were just as effective as a cleric when in a group setting.  So what if a cleric can rez and a shaman cannot?  If the group wipes (which is almost a guaranteed thing when the healer dies) the cleric has to run back naked with the group anyway. 

    If you insist on giving the shaman a rez, do not make it just a spells.  I'd rather it be more 'shaman-like'.  Kinda like how the necro could summon a corpse but needed a coffin as a reagent.  The shaman should need some consumable item to cast a rez...and it still should be far less powerful than a cleric rez.

    • 87 posts
    December 14, 2015 11:25 AM PST

    I don't think only clerics should have good rezzes, if rezzes in this game will restore xp that is, or you get bong hoolios that refuse a 70% rez over a 95% instead of getting the ball rolling again.

    • Moderator
    • 9082 posts
    December 14, 2015 6:47 PM PST

    Vandraad said:

    Kilsin said:

    Vandraad said:

    I wouldn't mind if a Shaman could rez, but a Cleric should have a better rez spell.  Where as a Cleric might eventually get a 100% xp resurection spell, a Shaman should cap out much lower.  Our expanded utility (buffs, dots, hots, debuffs) more than make up for a lower powered resurection.  I do not want the Shaman to just be a Cleric in different armor.  I'll take the broad utility of a shaman over the narrrow specilization of a cleric.

    I didn't mean for Shaman to be a copy/paste of the Clerics by any means, I am one of the biggest opponents for that type of class building, but a healer class should be able to heal and rez just as well as the other healers, their differences would be broken down in other ways like utility, survivability, buffing, debuffing etc.

    And the EQ1 shaman did exactly that. Our heals were smaller than the cleric but when you add in Slow on the mob, Haste on all the melee, STR/AGI/DEX/HP buffs on the entire group plus solid Heal over Time (HoT) spells, our 'smaller heals' were just as effective as a cleric when in a group setting.  So what if a cleric can rez and a shaman cannot?  If the group wipes (which is almost a guaranteed thing when the healer dies) the cleric has to run back naked with the group anyway. 

    If you insist on giving the shaman a rez, do not make it just a spells.  I'd rather it be more 'shaman-like'.  Kinda like how the necro could summon a corpse but needed a coffin as a reagent.  The shaman should need some consumable item to cast a rez...and it still should be far less powerful than a cleric rez.

    That just sounds like Cleric elitism to me lol, why shouldn't other healers, like Shaman, have equal healing and rezzing capabilities? (Keeping in mind EQ and VG are actually very different games and Pantheon is being based on both)

    Why would I want to play a Shaman in EQ if a Cleric can heal better and Rez and how many Shaman were there in game compared to Clerics? (Serious question, I never played much of EQ due to real life commitments)

    • 2189 posts
    December 15, 2015 10:53 AM PST

    Kilsin said:

    Vandraad said:

    Kilsin said:

    Vandraad said:

    I wouldn't mind if a Shaman could rez, but a Cleric should have a better rez spell.  Where as a Cleric might eventually get a 100% xp resurection spell, a Shaman should cap out much lower.  Our expanded utility (buffs, dots, hots, debuffs) more than make up for a lower powered resurection.  I do not want the Shaman to just be a Cleric in different armor.  I'll take the broad utility of a shaman over the narrrow specilization of a cleric.

    I didn't mean for Shaman to be a copy/paste of the Clerics by any means, I am one of the biggest opponents for that type of class building, but a healer class should be able to heal and rez just as well as the other healers, their differences would be broken down in other ways like utility, survivability, buffing, debuffing etc.

    And the EQ1 shaman did exactly that. Our heals were smaller than the cleric but when you add in Slow on the mob, Haste on all the melee, STR/AGI/DEX/HP buffs on the entire group plus solid Heal over Time (HoT) spells, our 'smaller heals' were just as effective as a cleric when in a group setting.  So what if a cleric can rez and a shaman cannot?  If the group wipes (which is almost a guaranteed thing when the healer dies) the cleric has to run back naked with the group anyway. 

    If you insist on giving the shaman a rez, do not make it just a spells.  I'd rather it be more 'shaman-like'.  Kinda like how the necro could summon a corpse but needed a coffin as a reagent.  The shaman should need some consumable item to cast a rez...and it still should be far less powerful than a cleric rez.

    That just sounds like Cleric elitism to me lol, why shouldn't other healers, like Shaman, have equal healing and rezzing capabilities? (Keeping in mind EQ and VG are actually very different games and Pantheon is being based on both)

    Why would I want to play a Shaman in EQ if a Cleric can heal better and Rez and how many Shaman were there in game compared to Clerics? (Serious question, I never played much of EQ due to real life commitments)

     

    It is a matter of give and take. The EQ1 Shaman was vastly more adaptable because of its broad utility than the narrow focused cleric.  Why were they different?  Honestly because the cleric had rez.  If you keep the EQ1 shaman broad utility and add to it a rez, the class becomes overpowered.  You'll have to take something away from the shaman to give it a rez...and that will mean lessening out utility. 

    The Vanguard shaman was, frankly, terrible.  It had COH from the EQ1 mage, tons of fire based spells, more self-only melee buffs, heck it even had INT buffs from the EQ1 enchanter.  Gone were the vast array of melee buffs, vast array of DoTs and HoTs. 

    I really must disagree that every 'priest' class needs a rez.  That's just lazy design.  I never, as a Shaman, ever felt left out or unwanted in groups (even as the sole healer) because I did not have a rez spell.  You know why?  Because I had a reputation as a damn good Shaman and the level of players I ran with were willing to risk not having a cleric in the group.  It was not needed.  Why?  Because invariably there was a cleric somewhere nearby who, when we asked nicely, would rez us when we dragged over our corpses.

    Here's the thing to remember about a rez...you do not need it right away.  EQ1 had a very long timer before that rez clock ran out.  Just had to leave some useless item on the corpse and go about your camping.  Later, you get your necro friend to summon the bodies and a cleric to rez and you're good to go.  A rez while you are there is convenient, but not a requirement! 

    • Moderator
    • 9082 posts
    December 15, 2015 4:03 PM PST

    Vandraad said:

    Kilsin said:

    Vandraad said:

    Kilsin said:

    Vandraad said:

    I wouldn't mind if a Shaman could rez, but a Cleric should have a better rez spell.  Where as a Cleric might eventually get a 100% xp resurection spell, a Shaman should cap out much lower.  Our expanded utility (buffs, dots, hots, debuffs) more than make up for a lower powered resurection.  I do not want the Shaman to just be a Cleric in different armor.  I'll take the broad utility of a shaman over the narrrow specilization of a cleric.

    I didn't mean for Shaman to be a copy/paste of the Clerics by any means, I am one of the biggest opponents for that type of class building, but a healer class should be able to heal and rez just as well as the other healers, their differences would be broken down in other ways like utility, survivability, buffing, debuffing etc.

    And the EQ1 shaman did exactly that. Our heals were smaller than the cleric but when you add in Slow on the mob, Haste on all the melee, STR/AGI/DEX/HP buffs on the entire group plus solid Heal over Time (HoT) spells, our 'smaller heals' were just as effective as a cleric when in a group setting.  So what if a cleric can rez and a shaman cannot?  If the group wipes (which is almost a guaranteed thing when the healer dies) the cleric has to run back naked with the group anyway. 

    If you insist on giving the shaman a rez, do not make it just a spells.  I'd rather it be more 'shaman-like'.  Kinda like how the necro could summon a corpse but needed a coffin as a reagent.  The shaman should need some consumable item to cast a rez...and it still should be far less powerful than a cleric rez.

    That just sounds like Cleric elitism to me lol, why shouldn't other healers, like Shaman, have equal healing and rezzing capabilities? (Keeping in mind EQ and VG are actually very different games and Pantheon is being based on both)

    Why would I want to play a Shaman in EQ if a Cleric can heal better and Rez and how many Shaman were there in game compared to Clerics? (Serious question, I never played much of EQ due to real life commitments)

     

    It is a matter of give and take. The EQ1 Shaman was vastly more adaptable because of its broad utility than the narrow focused cleric.  Why were they different?  Honestly because the cleric had rez.  If you keep the EQ1 shaman broad utility and add to it a rez, the class becomes overpowered.  You'll have to take something away from the shaman to give it a rez...and that will mean lessening out utility. 

    The Vanguard shaman was, frankly, terrible.  It had COH from the EQ1 mage, tons of fire based spells, more self-only melee buffs, heck it even had INT buffs from the EQ1 enchanter.  Gone were the vast array of melee buffs, vast array of DoTs and HoTs. 

    I really must disagree that every 'priest' class needs a rez.  That's just lazy design.  I never, as a Shaman, ever felt left out or unwanted in groups (even as the sole healer) because I did not have a rez spell.  You know why?  Because I had a reputation as a damn good Shaman and the level of players I ran with were willing to risk not having a cleric in the group.  It was not needed.  Why?  Because invariably there was a cleric somewhere nearby who, when we asked nicely, would rez us when we dragged over our corpses.

    Here's the thing to remember about a rez...you do not need it right away.  EQ1 had a very long timer before that rez clock ran out.  Just had to leave some useless item on the corpse and go about your camping.  Later, you get your necro friend to summon the bodies and a cleric to rez and you're good to go.  A rez while you are there is convenient, but not a requirement! 

    Ok cool, thanks for the info mate, so it sounds like class interdependence working well then, which is the balance I was talking about before in one of my CM questions. Coming from VG mainly, there are many differences between the two games and most of the differences worked very well in one game but would have had a negative impact on the other game, so I guess it's tough to compare because any of the VG healers without a rez, would have been pretty much unwanted even though they had other utility and survivability to bring to the table.

    I have to disagree on the VG Shaman, maybe coming from an EQ Shaman it was different for you but the class itself was pretty awesome when it broke off into 3 patrons (Tuurgin (Bear), Rakuur (Wolf) and Hyatet (Bird), the Bear and Wolf did not have any fire based spells at all, the hyatet did due to it's phoenix-like form which gave it great fire resist and a weak fire spell to cast but for the most part it was dependant on which patron you chose as to what buffs, main abilities and spells you got, you couldn't do it all.

    I appreciate the information and realise it's probably harder than I first thought to compare EQ and VG classes. ;)

    • 84 posts
    December 15, 2015 5:10 PM PST

    I would like to see the rez mechanic by class rethought (like most things in MMOs I guess :D ).

     

    Give all rez classes equal EXP rez, that's fine, but make the benefits of each class rezzing different.

     

    Example (not listing EXP return since it will all be equal):

    Cleric rez returns the most amount of health, least amount of rez effects, least amount of mana. Just for numbers: 40% of health, 1 min rez effect timer, 15% mana

    Shamn rez returns most amount of mana, medium amount of rez effects, least amount of health Just for numebrs: 40% of mana, 2 mins rez effect timer, 15% health

    Druid rez returns a balance of mana and health, slightly more rez effects. 40% mana and health 3min rez effect timer

    You'd then have to balance out what the rez effects do to the player against the benefits returned. While 40% mana and health seems like a great trade off, the 3 min rez timer may not be so desireable - however when you need that body up and functioning that 40% mana-health may be worth the trade off vs the 40-15 but less rez timer the cleric offers.

     

    Not trying to focus on the number because they are just there to give an example how it could work - it's more about the concept of situational rezzing and less of the 'same old'

     

    • 73 posts
    December 15, 2015 8:19 PM PST

    I can see how from a lore point of view the shaman class actually might make sense in being able to rez, However, from a balance standpoint there should really be clear class descriptions implemented. I never felt second fiddle as a shaman when it came to healer, as someone else pointed out the slows mitigated damage and the regen spells subtreacted from the downtime. I would say as a compromise the shaman could get a Rez but it shouldnt be competitive with the priest classes, perhaps it could be a no xp Rez.


    This post was edited by Valith at December 15, 2015 8:20 PM PST
    • 157 posts
    December 15, 2015 11:34 PM PST

    Vandraad said:

    It is a matter of give and take. The EQ1 Shaman was vastly more adaptable because of its broad utility than the narrow focused cleric.  Why were they different?  Honestly because the cleric had rez.  If you keep the EQ1 shaman broad utility and add to it a rez, the class becomes overpowered.  You'll have to take something away from the shaman to give it a rez...and that will mean lessening out utility. 

    The Vanguard shaman was, frankly, terrible.  It had COH from the EQ1 mage, tons of fire based spells, more self-only melee buffs, heck it even had INT buffs from the EQ1 enchanter.  Gone were the vast array of melee buffs, vast array of DoTs and HoTs. 

    I really must disagree that every 'priest' class needs a rez.  That's just lazy design.  I never, as a Shaman, ever felt left out or unwanted in groups (even as the sole healer) because I did not have a rez spell.  You know why?  Because I had a reputation as a damn good Shaman and the level of players I ran with were willing to risk not having a cleric in the group.  It was not needed.  Why?  Because invariably there was a cleric somewhere nearby who, when we asked nicely, would rez us when we dragged over our corpses.

    Here's the thing to remember about a rez...you do not need it right away.  EQ1 had a very long timer before that rez clock ran out.  Just had to leave some useless item on the corpse and go about your camping.  Later, you get your necro friend to summon the bodies and a cleric to rez and you're good to go.  A rez while you are there is convenient, but not a requirement! 

    The Vanguard cleric also got hero's call ;) not sure about disciple and blood mage. I think you just didn't like the Vanguard shaman because it didn't meet your expectation of being like the one in Everquest. Because really, the shaman was awesome. And you didn't have to use fire spells. 

     

    And I'd really like to avoid what you wrote yourself. You said yourself people took you in group because you had to build up a certain "reputation". Even then they needed to be aware of the "risk" of not having a rez. Then you needed to find a cleric to rez you. 

    IF it is planned that there are more dedicated healer, then at least for me it's clear that they won't take the Everquest cleric and build something Vanguard shaman. The Pantheon clerics and shaman might be so that neither the Everquest nor Vanguard crowd will recognize them and that is not necessarily a bad thing. 

    IF they make dedicated healer no class should be at a disadvantage - or people who are interested in playing a dedicated one won't play the inferior one.

     

    • 2189 posts
    December 16, 2015 8:44 AM PST

    THe crux of my argument really was in my last paragraph where I said "Here's the thing to remember about a rez...you do not need it right away.  EQ1 had a very long timer before that rez clock ran out.  Just had to leave some useless item on the corpse and go about your camping.  Later, you get your necro friend to summon the bodies and a cleric to rez and you're good to go.  A rez while you are there is convenient, but not a requirement!"

    Let me approach this from a different direction: Is the defining ability of a priest the ability to resurrect or the ability to heal? if it is resurrection, does that then mean they must all resurrect equally as well?  Or even do it the same way? What is the most important aspect of the rez?  Getting some XP back?  I'll come back to this in a minute.

    The other part of the priest class is healing, they all do it nearly equally well but they must go about it differently.  Cleric is the brute power healer.  It just powers through the incoming damage.  The Shaman needs to apply Slow + debuffs-to-mob + buffs-to-group so it's smaller heals are effectively bigger.  Thus they can heal (in group settings) nearly equally.  A cleric needs 1 spell to accomplish their healing while the Shaman needs at least 4 spells.  And I'm perfectly fine with that because those 3 other spells are UTILITY. 

    So resurrection, if it needs to be equal across all priest classes, does everything about it need to be equal?  Keep the XP return the same IF that is determined to be the crucial feature of resurrection.  You can then differ the amount of health and mana returned upon resurrection.  Cleric rez returns you with (and these are just examples) 75% health, 50% mana.  Shaman rez returns 50% health, 0% mana.

    HOW the resurrection happens can then be different as well.  Cleric just casts a spell.  A Shaman is, by its nature, more ritualistic.  Sure it still uses a spell, but it also needs reagents and consumed items, even possibily made-on-the-spot potions. 

    • 157 posts
    December 16, 2015 9:36 AM PST

    Thanks for explaining it again. I still feel it immane uneven, *if* the Everquest shaman was supposed to be a dedicated healer. If he was utility with ok-ish healing capability, ok. But I wouldn't really call it a dedicated healer then.

    When you were in Everquest looking for a healer and both an unknown shaman and cleric would apply to your group, same level, same quality in gear. I just don't think that my hypothetical group would choose the unknown shaman over the unknown cleric. THIS is the imbalance I am talking about.

    My hope for Pantheon is that if they set up more healer, they set them up as equals - also in rezzing capability. When one group chooses healer x because it is more casterfriendly, fine. Another, more melee orientated group might preferably invites one who buffs melee better, great. Or people like the hp buffs better. Or the one which debuffs better, good.

    But if they make his innate abilities - the healing - not equally strong, then people will choose the inferior one only when the "prime" healer is not to have. I really hope Pantheon won't go that route. There is nothing in the name 'cleric' which makes it automatically the "better" healer. Nothing except that it was so in Everquest, and people have fond memories of Everquest, I really get that. It's probably what you are accustomed to and that makes it "right" in a sense.

    Where we disagree is that this fixation to the cleric as the better healer, the prime healer is good for the game and not just an expression of nostalgia, some kind of precious attachment to their former role.


    This post was edited by Duffy at December 16, 2015 9:40 AM PST
    • 2189 posts
    December 16, 2015 11:28 AM PST

    Duffy said:

    Thanks for explaining it again. I still feel it immane uneven, *if* the Everquest shaman was supposed to be a dedicated healer. If he was utility with ok-ish healing capability, ok. But I wouldn't really call it a dedicated healer then.

    When you were in Everquest looking for a healer and both an unknown shaman and cleric would apply to your group, same level, same quality in gear. I just don't think that my hypothetical group would choose the unknown shaman over the unknown cleric. THIS is the imbalance I am talking about.

    My hope for Pantheon is that if they set up more healer, they set them up as equals - also in rezzing capability. When one group chooses healer x because it is more casterfriendly, fine. Another, more melee orientated group might preferably invites one who buffs melee better, great. Or people like the hp buffs better. Or the one which debuffs better, good.

    But if they make his innate abilities - the healing - not equally strong, then people will choose the inferior one only when the "prime" healer is not to have. I really hope Pantheon won't go that route. There is nothing in the name 'cleric' which makes it automatically the "better" healer. Nothing except that it was so in Everquest, and people have fond memories of Everquest, I really get that. It's probably what you are accustomed to and that makes it "right" in a sense.

    Where we disagree is that this fixation to the cleric as the better healer, the prime healer is good for the game and not just an expression of nostalgia, some kind of precious attachment to their former role.

    Ooooh..we're so close to agreeing here but we're off by just a tiny point. 

    We both in agreement that the priest classes should be equivalent in healing power.  I limit that equality to the group setting though and I'll touch on that a bit later.  Where I think we're apart is how they obtain that equivalence.  I'm saying that the Shaman (and I don't care if its the EQ1 shaman, EQ2, RIFT or VG versions) gets that equivalent by different means...with those means being the Slow+Debuffs on the mob and Buffs+Hots and direct Heals on the group.

    Because the Shaman heal spells is not as powerful, it needs those other spells to lower that incoming DPS and the buffs to increase the outgoing DPS (shortening the TTK).  Stacking a HoT with a direct Heal against a slowed and weakened mobs makes the shaman heals just as effective.  Do you agree with that?

    I don't need the cleric to be the best healer in everyday situations because the Shaman is just as good of a healer because of it's utility spells.

    So the question is this:  When it comes to equivalence in healing power, are you ONLY relying upon the heal spell iteself or do other mitigating factors apply?  My approach is one of including those mitigating factors.  I believe if you only rely upon the power of the healing spell itself then all the healers will be just identical copies of each other.

    • 133 posts
    December 16, 2015 1:46 PM PST

    Some good conversation going on in here! I am in the camp of thinking that there should be more than one res class, and my OP was mostly a lore discussion. But since the conversation has evolved so much, I think there's actually a few classes that could get res from a lore perspective that could be balanced. This might get a little dodgey since this is a shaman forum, but I think it fits the conversation we're having.

    There are 3 no brainer classes for res, Cleric, Shaman, and Druid. I also have what I expect to be a controversial opinion, and that is that Dire Lords (might) be a good res fit from a lore perspective, depending on how classes flesh out. 

    I really like the VG class balance a lot more than EQ. I felt EQ often had "easy " classes and "hard" ones, and gear was often the biggest difference in ability. VG was more "you're not SOL of x class isn't LFG, but each one is still unique."

    That said, I agree with the people saying the 3 healers should have the same res. Why not? If one class can res 90, another 70, another 50, then suddenly you get res snobs. Balance the healers in their type of healing and type of buffs. Honestly I wasn't 100% opposed to ESO where all classes could res so long as they had a stone on them. 

    So maybe instead it balances like this:

    Cleric: fastest recovery time.

    Shaman: fastest spell cast time (they are the spirit tamers after all) making them a good battle res.

    Druid: slowest of both, unless you're in a forest zone in which case they're the best at both.

    Dire Lord: maybe only 25 or 50% exp recovery and requires a soulstone to res, but makes for a good wipe saver in a pinch, or useful if healer goes down deep in a crawl. (Similar to necros res)

    I'm sure there's plenty of people who think "no! Clerics only!" Or "holy ****, did you really suggest a tank can res?" But let's be real, of all the abilities to balance around, res is pretty far down on the spectrum. It can be a real help, but it's far from a class breaking ability. 

    What I do NOT want to see are any classes where you get heals and res and that's it. That's kinda lazy at this point in gaming. Healers should all be a viable heal and res, and the balance should come elsewhere. (Buffs, DS etc.)

     

    • 157 posts
    December 16, 2015 11:20 PM PST

    Ooooh..we're so close to agreeing here but we're off by just a tiny point. 

    We both in agreement that the priest classes should be equivalent in healing power.  I limit that equality to the group setting though and I'll touch on that a bit later.  Where I think we're apart is how they obtain that equivalence.  I'm saying that the Shaman (and I don't care if its the EQ1 shaman, EQ2, RIFT or VG versions) gets that equivalent by different means...with those means being the Slow+Debuffs on the mob and Buffs+Hots and direct Heals on the group.

    Because the Shaman heal spells is not as powerful, it needs those other spells to lower that incoming DPS and the buffs to increase the outgoing DPS (shortening the TTK).  Stacking a HoT with a direct Heal against a slowed and weakened mobs makes the shaman heals just as effective.  Do you agree with that?

    I don't need the cleric to be the best healer in everyday situations because the Shaman is just as good of a healer because of it's utility spells.

    So the question is this:  When it comes to equivalence in healing power, are you ONLY relying upon the heal spell iteself or do other mitigating factors apply?  My approach is one of including those mitigating factors.  I believe if you only rely upon the power of the healing spell itself then all the healers will be just identical copies of each other.

    I am all for diversity, as long as it works. I am no advocate of giving all (dedicated) healer all the same spells and just name them different. That in mind, I want all healer be equals in healing power: they should all struggle the same by achieving their goal, in group and raid setting. When you set up the shaman so and leaving the cleric so, then the shaman will invariably struggle more.

    It will favor the cleric, because as you put it: the cleric will have to cast one spell to achieve his goal, and the shaman (on your account some paragraphs ago) at least 4. As you set it up, the shaman is dependant of its debuffs landing on the mob: 2 resists in a row? 1 fizzle then? Well too bad for your carpal tunnel syndrom - and more for your group because its dead already. The cleric will also have his chance to fizzle, but only on 1 spell (don't know if fizzle will be in game but I expect it). Hardly will his heals get resisted. It will just heal.

    Then take into account a possible global cooldown. I hope it will only be the super super tiny one you almost don't notice like in Everquest2, but I know Vanguards were waaaay longer! So you have your shaman cast spell1 [add GCD] spell 2 [add GDC] spell 3 [add GCD] and finally! his smaller healing spell. Even if the GCD is the super tiny one, added up it will be at least 1 second, very likely more. All resists and all fizzle will still kick it off. Your group is dead by the time you finally made it? Too bad. Next time just invite the cleric because it took him only 1 big juicy heal to achieve his goal. 

    Even if it took the cleric the same time (plus all added global cooldowns) to cast his spell it took the shaman to cast his 4, the cleric would have his advantage because his heals won't be resisted while everything what is casted on a mob can. Some raid bosses might even be immune to some of the shaman spells.

    Again, I am all for diversity. I just feel its highly unjust to build the cleric with the innate ability to heal and the others need to somehow make it work. There are so many possible healing mechanics to achieve diversity.

    There are at least 4 different "heals" which could be utilized. There are wards which negate incoming damage. Heal charges could proc when receving damage. There are the hots (depending on how effective they are set up, because invariably this are heals to be effective only when damage was done). Then the direct heals, also only effective when the damage was received already.

    Then an offensive orientated healer could proc heals when damaging a mob, while super fragile itself. The other could be more defensive orientated and proc stoneskins while healing. The next could rely on his awesome mitigation buffs. The next could heal through taking the damage to his body. 

    So many things could be done to make all healer distinct and give them a different flavor!

    • 2189 posts
    December 17, 2015 12:56 PM PST

    I truly did not look at fizzles because ater a certain point they become non-existant..and that point has shown to be fairly early on in the life of a game.

    Wards though?  My experience with them has shown them to be subpar to healing (not saying they could be better in Pantheon).  Heals have, so far, always healed more damage than Wards would absorb and in some cases Wards left a timer behind on the target preventing you from re-applying another Ward for some period of time.  Ive never seen heals have some an effect.

    HoTs I just adore because they are what keeps everyone else in a raid or group alive, just enough to keep their health topped up due to AoEs or other things happening.  I'll take solid HoT spells, single target and group though, for the Shaman.

    I'll just reiterate one more time, what I described with the EQ1 shaman did work and worked brilliantly and was better than the Vanguard shaman and miles above that ridiculous idea they had for a Shaman in RIFT.  It was a solid single-group main healer and a solid heal-everyone-else-because-the-clerics-are-in-a-rotation healer on raids. The cleric was the cleric, the shaman the shaman...and it worked.

    And I guess I'll bring it up now, but I'm worried any significant reliance at all upon what Vanguard did.  After all, the game failed and failed hard.  Clearly if the concepts, ideas and delivery had been good the game would have survived.  But it didn't.  EQ1 is still going strong, EQ2 as well and someday that EQNext will show up.

     

    EDIT:  Do I want the cleric to be a class that just stands there and casts Complete Heal over and over?  Heck no...that would be boring for anybody.  What I do not want is my class being brought into that by increasing our heal spells at the cost of losing utility.  Instead give the cleric more utility and reduce their heals to match ours.  Give the clerics the raw HP buffs, AC buffs, MR buffs, Wards, the Heal Procs buffs (self, Def Targ and maybe even group) .  Make them a melee healer.  Leave my shaman class with our melee buffs/debuffs, DoTs and HoTs.


    This post was edited by Vandraad at December 17, 2015 1:17 PM PST
    • 157 posts
    December 17, 2015 11:05 PM PST

    Vandraad,

    I think that at this point I leave it at that, because I respectfully disagree with almost everything you said. From regarding damage prevented inferior to health healed, Vanguard's "failure" due to the reason you suggested they were, and else. To address all this points I'd answer in such length I'd completely stray from this thread's topic (we already did, sorry for that).

    What I wish for you, me and everybody else is that even if we might find classes not as we expected, even class roles not as expected, and even if this would break our heart (ok ok I am overly dramatic now) we will still give this game a solid chance. 


    This post was edited by Duffy at December 17, 2015 11:22 PM PST
    • 2189 posts
    December 18, 2015 8:42 AM PST

    Duffy said:

    Vandraad,

    I think that at this point I leave it at that, because I respectfully disagree with almost everything you said. From regarding damage prevented inferior to health healed, Vanguard's "failure" due to the reason you suggested they were, and else. To address all this points I'd answer in such length I'd completely stray from this thread's topic (we already did, sorry for that).

    What I wish for you, me and everybody else is that even if we might find classes not as we expected, even class roles not as expected, and even if this would break our heart (ok ok I am overly dramatic now) we will still give this game a solid chance. 

    Oh, I'm invested enough in this game already that I have to give it many chances.  I worry because I've just been so disappointed in game after game, many of which I was an early tester and points on broken mechanics, exploitable design, underpowered abilities and overpowere classes were given the "we'll look into that right away" only to see it unchanged at release.

    • 250 posts
    December 18, 2015 9:34 PM PST

    Duffy said: @Boulda, well obviously it is not meant so that the cleric can only heal and brings absolutely nothing else to the table and the shaman can heal the same but brings also buffs. Who says that? Nobody really.

    Not quite sure how you took my comments because I did say a Cleric heals, Rez's, Armour buffs. Not just heal only. But their strength is in the healing and Rezzing when things go wrong.

    If a Shaman healed and Rezzed the same as a Cleric, then the Clerics other buffs would have to be powerful enough to make them wanted.

    During Combat a Shamans buffs/slows/debuffs are preferred but if they healed as good that would outweigh the requirements for a clreic.

     

     


    This post was edited by Boulda at December 19, 2015 1:03 AM PST