Clerics should have a raid rez spell, 30 second cast 10 minutes cool-down type of thing time but rezzes everyone AoE (for use after wipes)
.. There, a much needed rez spell and cleric unique.
Personally I dont think clerics should be the only class with a rez. There are many other ways to make the cleric class special without making the game 'unfun'.. and losing your tank for 30 minutes because they forgot/refused to bind outside the dungeon is not fun.
AoE rez sounds like a good spell to me. Either with cleric epics or people actually casting spells it took a while for the old 72 and 54 (was 54 right?) raids to rez everyone even with 5+ clerics. Later on with other classes being able to rez is still took a bit. The cast time seems fair too so that it isn't abused in combat. Maybe make it out of combat only and a minimum number of players in the raid group as well.
I understand the point of a cooldown on a spell this powerful, but given the number of clerics your average raid has and the typical time between the resses, buffs, and re-attempt, it doesn't seem like it effects the spell's usage for a single cleric and definitely not multiple clerics. But, since it doesn't really effect it I have no problem with them tossing a cooldown on the spell to appease some people.
I'm not a cleric personally, however the AoE rez seems a bit OP. Not that I think an ae rez can't be in the game, but it sounds more like a class defining ability to me...and it seems like it does to all of you also. But we already know that the cleric's class defining ability is Pillar Shield, which basically sounds like the ultimate defense. When they say that NO ENEMY CAN PASS, i take it to include bosses. It kind of fits, when you consider that the cleric will likely be the only plate healer class, that their ultimate ability is an impenetrable wall. With Pantheon being all about class interdependency, I could see some other class having the ae rez, if it is in the game. If a cleric had it, combined with Pillar Shield, he would basically be a one man life preserver.
Now, a cleric throwing up Pillar Shield to give another class time to fire off their class defining spell and get the group back up? That's class synergy!
Edited because autocorrect... Isn't always correct...
Yes I would have to agree AoE rez is a bit OP.
Not really a fan of in/out of combat mechanics either.
I played a cleric for quite some time in live and I have to say the click effect (96%, 10 second cast rez) of the epic weapon was about right. It made it difficult but not impossible to use in combat (cause there was no in/out of combat mechanic) and was yet fast enough that a group of clerics could get a raid force back up in a decent amount of time.
Even so rez was used to implement zerg tactics, so I can only imagine how easy zerg would be if it was AoE.
I'm also not against allowing other healer classes have rez, but perhaps they should need to earn that via the progeny system?
Now Pillar shield is interesting, but really doesn't feel like a cleric ability IMO. Not sure how much actual use you would get out of it if your primary role is to keep your party alive. Would there be time to stop healing in a hard fight to even mess with it?
My 2cp
-Az
Now Pillar shield is interesting, but really doesn't feel like a cleric ability IMO. Not sure how much actual use you would get out of it if your primary role is to keep your party alive. Would there be time to stop healing in a hard fight to even mess with it?
Well, I think we would have to see it in action to really know the answer to this question. There is also the post Brad made earlier tonight, you may not have gotten to read it yet, about having some spells that can be cast while moving at full speed, and also some that can be cast while moving slowly. I think these will add a good bit of variety to the tactics used build just about every casting class. So, you may very well be able to mess with that shield and still heal your group to a certain extent.
I also agreed with you about Pillar Shield itself not feeling like a cleric ability, until I reminded myself that Pantheon is putting its own spin on several races and classes. I mean, look at the gnomes, for example! If they can be reimagined like that, I can definitely see this change in clerics. I'm really looking forward to seeing how they tweak the enchanter class, I really hope they haven't shown us everything in the live stream...in fact I'm really hoping that they picked the enc viewpoint because that is one of the last classes they are finishing, and there is some completely new game play!
Gracefulhealer said:Hm so I love my clerics. And I believe only clerics and crusader should get rez spells. Necro could via lore also get a rez spell.
I do not want to see druids and shamans rezzing on top of what else their class brings to the table.
Agree?
I think if druids and shamans get a rez - then the excusivity of clerics would be a battle rez. (and no reagent, less mana, no cool down, etc)
too few people play a cleric - they prefer the utility of a hybrid class, like a sham/dru. giving a 0% rez at least gets the group xping again, instead of waiting for a CR - thats a utility spell and in line with the nature of the class.
Abusive said:Gracefulhealer said:Hm so I love my clerics. And I believe only clerics and crusader should get rez spells. Necro could via lore also get a rez spell.
I do not want to see druids and shamans rezzing on top of what else their class brings to the table.
Agree?
I think if druids and shamans get a rez - then the excusivity of clerics would be a battle rez. (and no reagent, less mana, no cool down, etc)
too few people play a cleric - they prefer the utility of a hybrid class, like a sham/dru. giving a 0% rez at least gets the group xping again, instead of waiting for a CR - thats a utility spell and in line with the nature of the class.
I hate to burst your bubble, but it has already been released in the various streams that all 3 priest classes will have the same rez abilities.
Vandraad said:Abusive said:Gracefulhealer said:Hm so I love my clerics. And I believe only clerics and crusader should get rez spells. Necro could via lore also get a rez spell.
I do not want to see druids and shamans rezzing on top of what else their class brings to the table.
Agree?
I think if druids and shamans get a rez - then the excusivity of clerics would be a battle rez. (and no reagent, less mana, no cool down, etc)
too few people play a cleric - they prefer the utility of a hybrid class, like a sham/dru. giving a 0% rez at least gets the group xping again, instead of waiting for a CR - thats a utility spell and in line with the nature of the class.
I hate to burst your bubble, but it has already been released in the various streams that all 3 priest classes will have the same rez abilities.
All three will have Rez, but not the same Rez. Each will have different benefits.
Beefcake said:Vandraad said:Abusive said:Gracefulhealer said:Hm so I love my clerics. And I believe only clerics and crusader should get rez spells. Necro could via lore also get a rez spell.
I do not want to see druids and shamans rezzing on top of what else their class brings to the table.
Agree?
I think if druids and shamans get a rez - then the excusivity of clerics would be a battle rez. (and no reagent, less mana, no cool down, etc)
too few people play a cleric - they prefer the utility of a hybrid class, like a sham/dru. giving a 0% rez at least gets the group xping again, instead of waiting for a CR - thats a utility spell and in line with the nature of the class.
I hate to burst your bubble, but it has already been released in the various streams that all 3 priest classes will have the same rez abilities.
All three will have Rez, but not the same Rez. Each will have different benefits.
Mostly correct, yes. If the return of XP is part of the resurrection line, I guarantee you that will be exactly the same across the 3 priest classes for a spell of a given level. So if the lvl 20 rez spell returns 20% xp, it won't matter if it is a shaman, druid or cleric casting that spell, you will get 20% xp back. In the end, that's the big one every cares about so it will be the same.
What will differ are minor benefits and rez effects. Cleric rezzes might enjoy a higher base return of HP, but no mana and no endurance. Shaman might return lower HP but have a short-term slow-return HoT component, a bit of mana and some endurance. Druid could be some other combination, even possibly returning some mana while the others do not.
Bringerz said: I like Vandraads take on the red aspect: "Pantheon (with a suspected level cap at release of 40) we could see something like this perhaps: ReconstitutionCLR/9 DRU/SHM/15 : Resurrect and restore 5% experience ReparationCLR/15 DRU/SHM/21 : Resurrect and restore 10% experience ReviveCLR/23 DRU/SHM/30 : Resurrect and restore 15% experience RenewalCLR/32 DRU/SHM/40 : Resurrect and restore 20% experience" I also likes the way VG handled healers.
I'm really not for something like this... very distinctly its a balance issue. You have a non-hybrid cleric, classicly with very weak offensive skills baring things like undead. While the two Hybrids do a range of damage, utility and healing.
In order to go down the path of passing all critical abilities to all "healing" classes means you turn them all into hybrids - do you start down the path of every "healing" class having the same range of abilities, or abilities themselves? I say let them be what they are and break the problem down to the esentials of what you are trying to solve:
1) xps recovery
2) transport to location
The above two are the primary function of ressurect. Maybe XPS recovery isn't even a part of ressurection, but lets assume it is for purposes of defining ability. Transport to location is the functional group need and to me doesn't require "divine" intervention for said purpose. XPS gain is a semblance of restoring "life/experiences" back to the body which has classically been divine.
Shaman and druids have been more community and nature - not divine hence why that break has normally been placed there across many games/stories. Clerics sacrifice offense, almost entirely, for defense and mitigation of damage for others. Hence why they have some uniquely powered spells.
Shaman's and Druids would really be more about the transport to location than the divine restoration. Power largely coming from within themselves and not channeled through a more powerful being.
All of this though is dependent on the world at hand and how each class is tied to their power.
*shrug* (assuming you are playing within the classic definition of the roles)
Defector said:Clerics should have a raid rez spell, 30 second cast 10 minutes cool-down type of thing time but rezzes everyone AoE (for use after wipes)
.. There, a much needed rez spell and cleric unique.
Everyone said this while raiding during EQ...I hope it happens cause too much time is wasted rezzing 50 people. I'd even make it a 24 hour cooldown so with 4 clerics in the raid you have 4 wipes till you go back to the old school way.
if only clerics can rez then wouldn't we have the same situation as EQ, which later on Sony realised their mistake and made rez and such things as emergency heals available to the other healers, otherwise groups that want to go deep into dungeons will only have a cleric in their group just in case of a wipe if only clerics can rez, all healers should be able to rez at some point and rez close to equal amounts, healing should by different by play styles, I'm looking forward to learning all 3 classes that are classed as main healers, if the other two cant do the basics (to me rez is a basic), then everyone's who wants to heal is going choose a cleric. Vanguard had it right, different healing styles but all could rez if the poop hits the fan so the game can continue without spending hours looking for a cleric to come rez deep in a dungeon. we want this game to be fun for all , not segregating a single class to be able to do a basic function. or are we looking for the glory where you can save the day by being that cleric that spends hours doing a corpse run for 5k?
People keep bringing up rez as the reason why Clerics were sought after more than Druids/Shamans in EQ. I question that train of thought. I know it has been a long time and specifics tend to be forgotten. Cheal was the reason why Clerics were considered superior. Rez was an afterthought.
So much so that, imho, Cheal was OP and should be avoided for any class in Pantheon.
philo said:People keep bringing up rez as the reason why Clerics were sought after more than Druids/Shamans in EQ. I question that train of thought. I know it has been a long time and specifics tend to be forgotten. Cheal was the reason why Clerics were considered superior. Rez was an afterthought.
So much so that, imho, Cheal was OP and should be avoided for any class in Pantheon.
I disagree. While Cheal was definitely strong, it was not op. For most of the game it was not mana efficient unless you were able to have it land on your tank with minimal life. Not all clerics can do that. If you happened to be a very talented cleric, then yes, it might be considered OP... but for most of the playerbase it was just another spell.
Clerics were only sought after because of the HP buff and ability to heal. If you have a bad tank, a good cleric can trivialize the content. but on the contrary if you have a great warrior, you can plow through dungeons with a decent druid or shaman.
On a sidenote, i do not think that AE rez would be an issue. Its an out of combat spell designed to eliminate downtime in raid enviroments. If you consider EQ1, the only downtime during raids was if you wiped, having to rez and recover. And the rezzing was only a matter of how many clerics you had. Assuming a 54 player raid with 9 clerics... it would take roughly 90 seconds of actual casting time to ressurect everyone (assuming 1 person survives). a Couple seconds to target a new player, loading times... youre looking at like 3 mins of rez time. So an AE Rez would save at most 5 minutes per attempt. Thats not that big of a deal.
I was referring to Cheal rotations specifically that were required for raiding and are what made druids/sham unwanted as healers. Sure a good shaman/druid could heal basically any one group encounter in the game. I tend to focus on raiding in reference to EQ because it was such a large part of the game...that is probably being short sighted.
Even if no one died you couldn't do even halfway challenging raid targets with druid/shaman as healers because of their lack of Cheal.
philo said:I was referring to Cheal rotations specifically that were required for raiding and are what made druids/sham unwanted as healers. Sure a good shaman/druid could heal basically any one group encounter in the game. I tend to focus on raiding in reference to EQ because it was such a large part of the game...that is probably being short sighted.
Even if no one died you couldn't do even halfway challenging raid targets with druid/shaman as healers because of their lack of Cheal.
Not every encounter was able to utilize a cheal rot. Shamans and druids were equally important. I understand what you are trying to say, but it doesn't play as big of a factor as you think. (As a reference point, the gap in healing is much more noticeable in the earlier expansions, and I just spent over a year as an officer in a phinny raiding guild).
Sure, the game has changed a lot. The EQ that people reference when talking about eq in regards to raiding is 2000-2003/04 time period. It's a different game otherwise (and from my short time playing there...very different on emu servers for a number of reasons, but of course there are always similarities.) I tend to put velious-luclin in a bubble...even though as far as this conversation is concerned, PoP and GoD utilized Cheal rotations heavily as well. (I quit during GoD...the game had nosedived by then imho). I still believe that the EQ people think of as "EQ"...the EQ that paved the way for raiding as we know it in mmorpgs of the future...relied heavily on Cheal to the exclusion of druids and shamans as far as being necessary to heal the main tank. (and of course not every raid encounter required a cheal rotation...just most of the difficult ones...which were usually the ones that mattered)...only sith speak in absolutes ;)
I would like to see all classes have a rez but with a couple of caveats.
First, resurrection should be something that's difficult to master. Make the spell something you need to quest for and level up in skill. Don't just put it on Jonas Templewalker for anyone to purchase. The spell should also be a no-drop/soulbound item when you get to avoid obvious shortcuts.
Second, it would be interesting for the rez effects to be different based on the class who did the rez. Perhaps if a druid gives you a rez, you become a tree for a short period before you can loot your corpse and return to battle. Make the rez more interesting and deeper in the lore than just clicking a rez box and looting your corpse.
philo said:Sure, the game has changed a lot. The EQ that people reference when talking about eq in regards to raiding is 2000-2003/04 time period. It's a different game otherwise (and from my short time playing there...very different on emu servers for a number of reasons, but of course there are always similarities.) I tend to put velious-luclin in a bubble...even though as far as this conversation is concerned, PoP and GoD utilized Cheal rotations heavily as well. (I quit during GoD...the game had nosedived by then imho). I still believe that the EQ people think of as "EQ"...the EQ that paved the way for raiding as we know it in mmorpgs of the future...relied heavily on Cheal to the exclusion of druids and shamans as far as being necessary to heal the main tank. (and of course not every raid encounter required a cheal rotation...just most of the difficult ones...which were usually the ones that mattered)...only sith speak in absolutes ;)
Shamans and druids each received a cheal style spell around that era that allowed them (with enough healing aas) to fit in a cheal rot. And although the game has changed, much of the encounters have not. The mobs that we couldn't use a cheal rot on, neither could they.
Also, GoD is widely considered (by those who have actually played through it either on live or progression servers as one of the single best raiding expansions ever. It was over tuned at first, and a completely different "lore track" so unfortunately alot of people quit. I highly recommend of given the chance, going back and playing it in era.
Porygon said:Also, GoD is widely considered (by those who have actually played through it either on live or progression servers as one of the single best raiding expansions ever. It was over tuned at first, and a completely different "lore track" so unfortunately alot of people quit. I highly recommend of given the chance, going back and playing it in era.
I have had this discussion easily a hundred times over the years (likely more) and I've never heard anyone say that. 90% of the time the consensus is that PoP was the downfall of the game...then there is that 10% that feel the downfall was Luclin and beyond and the only true raiding experience was Kunark/Velious. ... But that GoD was the best raiding expansion ever??? What?? My mind is blown...now
I've heard everything lol.
philo said:Porygon said:Also, GoD is widely considered (by those who have actually played through it either on live or progression servers as one of the single best raiding expansions ever. It was over tuned at first, and a completely different "lore track" so unfortunately alot of people quit. I highly recommend of given the chance, going back and playing it in era.
I have had this discussion easily a hundred times over the years (likely more) and I've never heard anyone say that. 90% of the time the consensus is that PoP was the downfall of the game...then there is that 10% that feel the downfall was Luclin and beyond and the only true raiding experience was Kunark/Velious. ... But that GoD was the best raiding expansion ever??? What?? My mind is blown...now
I've heard everything lol.
My quote specifically mentioned people that ACTUALLY played through the expansion. People that claim Luclin and PoP were the downfalls of the game typically did not last much longer after that. You will find it hardpressed to find a person who has been playing the game from Live until now that say PoP was the downfall etc. I dont play video games for Lore, so GoD didnt offend me. I dont care if im not good enough to do something, it just gives me something to strive for. When GoD was realeased people DESPISED the lore and were immediately turned away from the difficulty of Tipt and Vxed. The raiding was so difficult that not a single guild was able to beat the expansion until OoW was released. I understand where you are coming from, trust me, ive dealt with this conversation alot. I dealt with it ALOT on the progression servers. Most people that end up playing through the expansion change their mind on it.
I have gone back and tried to play EQ a few times through the years. I don't even consider it the same game. It isn't. Of course I have talked with people who played through GoD.
It never ceases to amaze me how many different perspectives there are on EQ for a number of reasons. It has changed so much and gone through so many different iterations over the years that people have a different perpective depending on when they played. Also, people's play style can directly effect their perspective. The old saying that the game started at the high end was never so true with any other game that I have ever heard of, or experienced, than it was with EQ. Leveling was the tutorial. The game didn't really start until you were max level and raiding everyday. If a player didn't get far enough to experience that then they missed a lot of what the game had to offer and will have a very different perpective than someone who did.
It has come to be almost a pet peeve at this point on this forum over the last few years with the people who try to relate emu servers to the real thing. Multiple people usually end up chiming in about the differences.. Sure you can draw some similarities, but the experience was completely different (honestly, I don't want to get into all of that...again).
Our perspectives are very different in that I have never heard anyone who stopped playing around 2003/04...PoP/GoD era site lore as the reason for leaving. Yes GoD was difficult when it first came out but all but the hardest content was doable for well equiped players right from the start... even before any GoD upgrades. I recall people enjoying the content. People were turned off for a number of reasons though...the primary one being the awful raid flaging system that had been implemented with PoP and continued through GoD. People were fed up with back flagging. Sure some people didn't like the new raid UI or the PoK hub or a number of things...but flagging...and back flagging...was the major issue.
Then there is the whole other conversation that I also don't want to get into...again. But it relates so I'll mention it... about how WoW changed the face of the genre and how the people who played EQ heavily during its prime were turned off by some of those changes that happened shortly there after. Both changes to EQ as well as other games. I remember being with some guildies who had tried the new WoW game and they ended up coming back to EQ and pointing out a bunch of things that made wow really easy and it became a running joke. That was vanilla wow that some people today actually consider challenging...and it was the butt of jokes for a long time. It is a different perspective. If flagging and other issues didn't drive those original EQ players away, the eventual dumbing down did. Making the game easier was general considered a negative. This conversation then turns to...if you didn't raid heavily prior to 2004 you haven't been able to experience a time when pve mmos were challenging unfortunately. It is the way things went. That is why some of the perspectives are so different. Some players weren't active at a time where they had a chance to experience it.
The point of all that is, the EQ that is generally being referred to as "EQ" is the iteration of the game during its prime when it was most popular...that 2000-2003 time frame. After that it isn't the same game. Trying to bring up other eras when the game was so different often leads to misconception and inaccuracies.
Most people I've ever talked to consider "EQ" as being release through Velious, Luclin being where the cards fell/the game changed dramatically. Eventually this led to Project 1999. During THAT time the whole game was a worthwhile journey and the "end game" mentality wasn't really a thing. If I recall correctly a good number of the original design team was gone by Luclin's development, Brad included only as a producer at that point as he was busy managing all kinds of games for SOE before leaving the company two months before Luclin's release.
I don't think anyone can matter of factly say what is being referred to as "EQ" except the person talking about it for themself. Everyone I know considers 1999-2001 as THE EverQuest.
I basically agree...but when talking about EQ raiding...as far as EQ being the game that started raiding as we know it in the genre, and that most other MMOs have copied since. The focus didn't tilt towards raiding until Kunark. There weren't even enough mobs in game to raid full time prior to that point..even then you had to make due with things like the Chardok Queen or other mobs that were only arguably raid targets. I could argue the raid focus didn't really start until Velious and Kunark was just the tip of the iceburg...but that is splitting hairs.
...and lets face it, there is no "the EQ" without talking about raiding. It was such a huge part of the game.