Abashi: All in all, things are looking better, but mage pets still are too powerful
JackiePrice
pets down so that now they are at least similar in strength to a same
levelled warrior instead of overwhelmingly stronger. Now, about mage pets--
A level 47 paladin dueled a mage pet that conned even to a level 41 player.
6 levels separated the paladin, and the pet. The pet not only won, but had
not yet taken 20% health damage. It massacred the paladin. There was no
contest. Tactics were not an issue, it was an earth pet and resisted all
root and stun attempts the paladin tried to use. The paladin also used Lay
Hands on himself (successfully) and managed a greater heal or two on
himself...still lost badly.
Never should a pet lower level than a PC melee character even have a hope of
defeating the melee class. Any paladin, shadowknight, bard, rogue, monk,
warrior, or ranger should defeat one of these pets without flinching. This
is NOT balanced.
It could be that you are happy with pet balance in relation to each other,
but are you happy with them in relation to the melee classes?
Mason Barge
>A level 47 paladin dueled a mage pet that conned even to a level 41 player.
It is disturing how much information is missing from this. What level was the
mage who summoned the pet, please? What level was the pet? If by "even" you
mean a pet summoned by a 49 mage that conned black to the paladin, it darn well
better beat him, or the mage won't be able to kill green mobs.
>it was an earth pet and resisted all
>root and stun attempts the paladin tried to use.
If the pet was resisting spells it was too high level for the pally.
> Any paladin, shadowknight, bard, rogue, monk,
>warrior, or ranger should defeat one of these pets without flinching
One of WHAT pets? This is just another pet-hating melee whine from someone who
thinks that melee should be the only powerful character in the game. Sure, let
a bard outmelee mage pets, just make sure you give the mage some sort of regen,
healing, and clarity-type spell in return.
I WOULD agree that a pally, monk or SK should outmelee a mage pet AT THE
CORRECT LEVEL, but this is already 100% true, despite your horrendously
distorted "example".
Pets might actually outdamage a pally/SK at the appropriate level, depending on
equipment, but will have much less HP and be unable to heal. A good monk will
slaughter a mage pet at the correct level.
A rogue or especially a bard must have solo melee problems in order to balance
them for group play. I love both classes and have strongly supported Verant's
upgrades to them, but both of these are made to pretty much require a group to
fulfill their potential. Adding these to your "melee" list simply shows a
basic misunderstanding of the concept of balance.
The only outcome of nerfing mage pets would be to ensure their non-inclusion in
groups, which appears to be your intention.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee."
- Abraham Lincoln
Pin
level 49 paladin.
Make sure they are not buffed; including the paladin's normal buffs.
I would prefer this test done with a 49warrior/ ranger/monk(do not use mend);
someone that can actually kick a little ass...
JackiePrice wrote:
> Verrant improved things a lot with the new necro pet nerfs, toning necro
> pets down so that now they are at least similar in strength to a same
> levelled warrior instead of overwhelmingly stronger. Now, about mage pets--
>
> A level 47 paladin dueled a mage pet that conned even to a level 41 player.
RoadieRik
people learn that if THEY want to nerf someone elses class eventually
someone will want to nerf THEIR class!
My biggest problem with these calls for unnecessary nerfs is that the nerf
wanters are obviously soloers. They would almost have to be. Who in their
right mind would want a potential group-mate to be weakened? Why would I
want the magician in my group to have a weaker, less effective pet? Why
would I want the wizard in my group to be interrupted more? Why would I
want the druid in my group to be less powerful?
The problem you speak of with the paladin is not a problem with the
mage...its a problem with the paladin. As a retired paladin I know of what
I speak. Paladins are NOT soloable after the late teens. Worse...paladins
are not even really what you'd call group friendly after the same point.
Simply put, paladins need work.
--
"Who said girls can't be gamers?"
JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
news:4HWl4.15948$gi.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
VWilcox
beat a shaman in a duel. Tanks better in a battle though. That's the
design. Dueling is not a big issue in this game.
Randy Neumann
"Mason Barge" <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000202094511...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> >
> >A level 47 paladin dueled a mage pet that conned even to a level 41
player.
>
> It is disturing how much information is missing from this. What level was
the
> mage who summoned the pet, please? What level was the pet? If by "even"
you
> mean a pet summoned by a 49 mage that conned black to the paladin, it darn
well
> better beat him, or the mage won't be able to kill green mobs.
>
> >it was an earth pet and resisted all
> >root and stun attempts the paladin tried to use.
>
> If the pet was resisting spells it was too high level for the pally.
>
> > Any paladin, shadowknight, bard, rogue, monk,
Randy Neumann
the same difference. You are going to find allot of necros screaming about
the mage pets now, because ours were nerfed because they were to powerful,
and now the mage pet is better than the necro pets were before. Its a
viscous circle.
Sylath
"RoadieRik" <mikesroa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:usXl4.2584$Vy.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> GRRRRRR!!!!!! Enough with the danged nerf ideas already! When oh WHEN
will
> people learn that if THEY want to nerf someone elses class eventually
> someone will want to nerf THEIR class!
>
> My biggest problem with these calls for unnecessary nerfs is that the nerf
> wanters are obviously soloers. They would almost have to be. Who in
their
> right mind would want a potential group-mate to be weakened? Why would I
> want the magician in my group to have a weaker, less effective pet? Why
> would I want the wizard in my group to be interrupted more? Why would I
> want the druid in my group to be less powerful?
>
> The problem you speak of with the paladin is not a problem with the
> mage...its a problem with the paladin. As a retired paladin I know of
what
> I speak. Paladins are NOT soloable after the late teens.
Worse...paladins
> are not even really what you'd call group friendly after the same point.
> Simply put, paladins need work.
>
>
>
> --
> "Who said girls can't be gamers?"
> JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
> news:4HWl4.15948$gi.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Verrant improved things a lot with the new necro pet nerfs, toning
necro
> > pets down so that now they are at least similar in strength to a same
> > levelled warrior instead of overwhelmingly stronger. Now, about mage
> pets--
> >
> > A level 47 paladin dueled a mage pet that conned even to a level 41
> player.
> > 6 levels separated the paladin, and the pet. The pet not only won, but
> had
> > not yet taken 20% health damage. It massacred the paladin. There was
no
> > contest. Tactics were not an issue, it was an earth pet and resisted
all
> > root and stun attempts the paladin tried to use. The paladin also used
> Lay
> > Hands on himself (successfully) and managed a greater heal or two on
> > himself...still lost badly.
> >
> > Never should a pet lower level than a PC melee character even have a
hope
> of
> > defeating the melee class. Any paladin, shadowknight, bard, rogue,
monk,
mida...@my-deja.com
"JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
[snip anti mage-pet rant]
People who actually saw the mage pet and the necromancer pet in action
at the same time, and tested them against each other, already knew this
crap.
A magician earth pet with full buffs and a lava sheild is practically
indestructable. Almost any normal MoB that melees it will die. The
only way to kill it is to hit it an enormous number of times, and doing
so will severely damage the attacker. The necromancer pet, fully
buffed by the necromancer, will lose to the earth pet, fully buffed by
the magician, 10 times out of 10. That was pre-patch.
This was masked in groups because getting full use out of an earth pet
requires that the pet be a MoBs primary target to bring the damage
shield into play. This doesn't happen much in groups because their
normal damage and taunt was too low to pull a MoB off a PC and on to
the pet. The Necromancer pet's raw damage output was.
That said, if you put Swift Like Wind (the PC equivalent of burnout
III) and a lava shield on a PC tank, The PC tank will do much, much
better in this little experiment. And it is appropriate to do this.
The game is balanced for GROUP PvE play at high levels, not solo PvP.
Of course, this requires the PC to be smart enough to use a two-hander
and forgo bash and kick. A lot of the ones I've met don't seem to
understand they have to do this against damage shielded opponents.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mason Barge
Which means what? Black, dark blue, or light blue? And more important, what
did it con to the paladin?
Jonathan
would be blue to a 47 wouldnt it? God what a fucking retard. It was even
mentioned that the pet was 6 levels lower than the paladin. Oh and if I
recall correctly, "JackiePrice" plays a druid so it is doubtful she wishes
that melee players "should be the only powerful character in the game."
Please read posts more thoroughly before making an ass out of one's self.
Mason Barge <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000202123213...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
Adar
Mason Barge <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000202123213...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> >He said "the pet conned even to a level 41"
>
> Which means what? Black, dark blue, or light blue? And more important,
what
> did it con to the paladin?
>
Even=black. The pet was from an L49 summon, so it was L41, and the paladin
was L47.
Does that make it clearer?
Brudo (E'ci)
Loredaeron (E'ci)
Mason Barge
>III) and a lava shield on a PC tank, The PC tank will do much, much
>better in this little experiment.
Don't forget, however, the lower mana efficiency of fireshield on a PC vs. a
pet.
This is for real life grouping, of course, not a pvp experiment.
>getting full use out of an earth pet
>requires that the pet be a MoBs primary target to bring the damage
>shield into play. This doesn't happen much in groups because their
>normal damage and taunt was too low to pull a MoB off a PC and on to
>the pet.
Or even more to the point, no mage is going to use an earth pet in a group
unless he needs a pet to be the primary target of a mob in a multiple mob
situation.
>
>Of course, this requires the PC to be smart enough to use a two-hander
>and forgo bash and kick. A lot of the ones I've met don't seem to
>understand they have to do this against damage shielded opponents.
ROFL.
Lokari
>You really need to work on those people skills, pal.
Hahahahahaha.
You slay me. Really.
--
www.enteract.com/~lokari
"No one of consequence"
Neuriot
wrote:
>Verrant improved things a lot with the new necro pet nerfs, toning necro
>pets down so that now they are at least similar in strength to a same
>levelled warrior instead of overwhelmingly stronger. Now, about mage pets--
>
>A level 47 paladin dueled a mage pet that conned even to a level 41 player.
>6 levels separated the paladin, and the pet. The pet not only won, but had
>not yet taken 20% health damage. It massacred the paladin. There was no
>contest. Tactics were not an issue, it was an earth pet and resisted all
>root and stun attempts the paladin tried to use. The paladin also used Lay
>Hands on himself (successfully) and managed a greater heal or two on
>himself...still lost badly.
>
>Never should a pet lower level than a PC melee character even have a hope of
>defeating the melee class. Any paladin, shadowknight, bard, rogue, monk,
>warrior, or ranger should defeat one of these pets without flinching. This
>is NOT balanced.
>
>It could be that you are happy with pet balance in relation to each other,
>but are you happy with them in relation to the melee classes?
>
Jesus.,!!!!
What did all of us Necromancers say? Fucking never-ending cycle for
all of you fucking pricks.! Nerf them. Ok. Now nerf them.!
Fuck all you whiny sumbitches.
Neuriot
Prh1966
the Paladin really stands in melee combat...
my money would be on the Warrior
Mason Barge <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
danstrad
Mason Barge wrote in message
<20000202123213...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
>>He said "the pet conned even to a level 41"
>
>Which means what? Black, dark blue, or light blue? And more important,
what
>did it con to the paladin?
>
Black. They said the other pally was 47 so it woulda been blue to him.
mak
melee classes ass. The pet that's lvl 41 had a 41 point damage sheild. Trust me on
this, any melee class gets it's ass kicked when it takes 41 damage every time it
hits something.
Marc Fuller wrote:
> Randy Neumann wrote:
> >
> > He said "the pet conned even to a level 41"
> >
>
> Which doesn't mean a whole lot. My Magician is level 26. At level 20, I could
> summon a pet that was white to another level 20. It hit for about 20-22 points
> of damage, depending on how good a pet it was. (I've summoned 20-white pets that
> hit 20, and others that hit for 22.) At level 26, I still occaisionally summon
> a pet that cons white to a level 20, but it has much better hit points, and
> seems to be generally better, despite being the same level. Also, he failed to
> mention if the mage had a Focus item. If the mage did, then it wasn't a fair
> comparison unless the paladin was given additional buffs, because the pet he was
> fighting had much better stats than a "base" pet. (Earth elementals don't get
> better hit points, because that would be insane, but they supposedly get better
> AC and agility. Water pets summon with almost as many hitpoints as a normal
> Earth, and get better stats. Air pets become as strong as a normal Water, and
> keep their insane Agility. Fire pets are still the wheezers of the group, but
> they at least become as strong as a normal Air pet.)
>
> Also, the type of pet is very important for this kind of alleged "test." If the
> paladin got his butt kicked by a Fire Elemental, then the player is obviously
> doing something really, really wrong. Earth pets could probably win by sheer
> hit-point inertia, which is how they are intentionally designed.
>
> If people are going to run this kind of test against pets, then I want them to
> provide complete data. Not only about the type of pet they're fighting,
> either. I want the same melee character to duel two of each other melee class
> at a level equal to himself, and report the results of that. And then to fight
> two of each other caster at an equal level. If the Paladin is going to complain
> that my pets are overpowered, I want to see how well he fares against a Warrior,
> and an SK, and especially an Enchanter.
>
> Marc Fuller
Alamin
Twilight <twil...@REMOVETHIS.ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3898df3c...@news.akl.ihug.co.nz...
> >SNIP
>
> lesse, Earth pet can triple hit for 57 each round, has a 300 pt DD (
> ever 20 secs or so ) and has around 3k hps. Delay around 20.
>
Err Twilight when did the Earth get a 300 pt DD that casts every 20 secs? My
49 earth casts root which is a non-damage spell, hp is closer to 2400 then
3k and the deleay is closer to 25 not 20. The triple 57's are not always
true also - have ran the logs on my 49 earth and it comes close to about 46
on average. Granted there are 58 pts hits, but not as often as you think.
Alamin Flamecaster
50 Magician Cazic Thule
Mason Barge
>>pally.
>
Pets con at mob levels, dipshit.
>>Sure, let a bard outmelee mage pets, just
>>make sure you give the mage some sort of regen, healing, and
>>clarity-type spell in return.
>
>Stupid fuck.
Shit-eating scumbucket :)
Gee, I can type dirty words on my computer too!
> A good monk will slaughter a mage pet at the correct
>>level.
>
>Wrong.
Well, there seem to be some monks that disagree.
> a basic
>>misunderstanding of the concept of balance.
>
>Wrong. The pet that cons white should not massacre the tank. Period.
Any mob that cons white will massacre a tank. I can't believe you don't know
this.
>You're so very wrong. And you're stupid, too.
>
>Sam
>
You are so very wrong, so extremely narrow, and such a foul-mouth slug, to
boot.
Mason Barge
>>
>
I don't agree with this. Pets con at "mob" levels. The paladin is, in effect,
fighting against a 49 mage's melee capability at either dark or light blue
level. I'd really like to try this knowing how the pet conned to the pally for
sure, but I'm guessing it would be light blue.
About five people have, in tones ranging from the helpful to childishly
obscene, stated the pet "conned even" and this is the same as black/white. I
just don't hear "conned even" in the game anymore, because few players can solo
a black mob at this level. Dark blue mobs might be a 50-50 proposition to some
players, but more likely the odds of a majority players of beating a dark blue
mob are less than even. So yes, somebody tells me "cons even" and I want to
know what they mean.
As to the larger question and the statements that a level 49 mage "should not"
be able to outmelee a paladin in a single trial:
Almost all a mage has is offense. Anyone who conceives of a mage as anything
but the premier damage engine does not understand the clase.
Verant indeed gives them (VERY roughly) 80% of the melee ability of a warrior
and about 80% of the DD ability of a wizard. The price they pay is the damage
vulnerability of a caster, difficulty in controlling their melee, and almost no
other really useful spells -- no crowd control, no transport, no sow, no stun,
no celerity. They are uber-monks, with even more damage (combined melee/DD)
and even less defense. And no, DD damage is not generally as useful as melee
damage although it is nice to have when things get hairty and something needs
to be dead in a hurry.
All of the people screaming, without reason, that a 49 mage's pet "shouldn't"
be able to outmelee a 47 paladin, are completely self-centered and have no
concept of overall class balance. And in a lot of cases, simply the tone of
the responses proves my point -- a lot of tank-types consider that they should
be the stars in the game and everyone else the chorus line. They are whining
children, many of whom need their mouths washed out with soap.
And these are likely to be the same people who, while screaming about nerfing
necro/mage pets, have the least concept of group balance, will never ask a
wizard into their group if there is an alternative, and will only include a
mage or necro if that is all that is available.
Isepic
Im a level 35 magician. At level 35, someone t-de me, they said, "in case
you are wondering, your pet is my level" this was from a level 26 magi. Now
if I am soloing a mob, and I prefer to, there is no way that my pet is going
to hold off a hill giant (or any other mob) that is close to my level. I am
currently casting 5-9 level (lower) pets. I have the shovel, and I am using
an earth pet. Now I know you are going to say, level 35 magician (or anyone)
dont solo. (thats because our pets cant take the beating) When I am grouped
in a dungeon, MOST groups dont want a pet because they have a tendency of
pulling other mobs when they are not wanted (THATS because they are so much
lower than the caster) If I cast a level 34 Earth elemental, I expect it to
be level 34, and stay 34 till I hit level 39 when I get then next Pet spell.
But I will assume that the melee class will be "threatened" because of it.
(I dont know why, I cant send my pet after another character, thats not a
mob) but yet, others can solo this hill giant (or in this case, them & 1
other I.E.: like me & my pet)
WHO CARES that 1 class is stronger than another, we all have our strengths
and our weaknesses, and thats just like real-life. Some are stronger, some
are smarter, etc. (ya, I know, its not "real life")
Gensher (35 magician)
xegony
"Marc Fuller" <kat...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3898FCB5...@mindspring.com...
> If people are going to run this kind of test against pets, then I want
JackiePrice
powerful than a similarly levelled melee character, AND then the mage
himself wihtout the pet is almost as powerful as well?
You want mages to essentially be two to three times as strong as a similarly
levelled melee character? That is what this is, because a mage WITHOUT a
pet will give a paladin a good fight.
Also, I think you misunderstand the mage. The mage is the epitome of a
support class, capable of everything.
When a casting class has a pet more powerful than a similarly levelled melee
class, why play the melee class? There is no advantage to it whatsoever!
You can have one character who is a mediocre melee fighter, or a mage who is
an amazing caster AND a superb melee fighter all in one!
I think its you who needs to understand balance better.
"Mason Barge" <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000203103012...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> All of the people screaming, without reason, that a 49 mage's pet
"shouldn't"
Mason Barge
>powerful than a similarly levelled melee character, AND then the mage
>himself wihtout the pet is almost as powerful as well?
How is a mage without a pet "almost as powerful" as anyone? No HP, no buffs,
no melee, less DD than wizard. Wizards, even with tp, stun, and far superior
DD, can hardly get into groups.
I don't buy that a mage's pet is "more powerful than a similarly levelled melee
character", or "as powerful", sorry. Just because a 49 mage's pet is reported
to have beaten up some unknown 47 pally on one occasion doesn't mean a whole
lot. Like I originally said, all the post did was make me want a lot more
information.
> That is what this is, because a mage WITHOUT a
>pet will give a paladin a good fight
Huh?
>Also, I think you misunderstand the mage. The mage is the epitome of a
>support class
A mage, alone among the caster and healer classes, has no critical "support"
capability, which is the source of all the whining from ignorant and
ego-besotten tanks. The class's usefulness is almost entirely as a
one-dimensional damage dealing machine.
Its defining addition to a group is massively upgrading damage output and
flexibility, with the occasional exception of a pet being able to absorb some
damage to take pressure off the healers.
WAHHH, mommy, that mage is hitting harder than I am! Make him stop!
>When a casting class has a pet more powerful than a similarly levelled melee
>class, why play the melee class? There is no advantage to it whatsoever!
The insight of that remark isn't going to win you a lot of credibility.
#1 There is no caster with a pet as "strong" as, much lass stronger than, a
melee PC at the same level. #2 Why do you think a warrior must be both the
most powerful damage dealer and the most powerful damage-absorber in the game?
Much less a paladin, who has healing. #3 A pet is useful only in a strictly
controlled environment, has a taunt that is virtually worthless in groups,
cannot pull, and so on.
JackiePrice
than, a
> melee PC at the same level.
That was the point of my post. A mage pet ALONE is more powerful, both in
damage dealing and damage taking ability, than a similarly levelled paladin.
That "one test" was not even ambiguous, the paladin died before he had even
started to scratch the earth pet. The paladin and mage were close to the
same level, only 2 levels apart, and the mage stayed out of the fight, not
even damage shielding the pet.
> #2 Why do you think a warrior must be both the
> most powerful damage dealer and the most powerful damage-absorber in the
> game?
I don't. I think the warrior should be INDEPENDANTLY strong enough to beat
ANYBODY's pet if that player is within 3 levels of him.
Why do you believe a mage pet should be simultaneously a more powerful
damage dealer and a more powerful damage absorber than a paladin?
> Much less a paladin, who has healing. #3 A pet is useful only in a
strictly
> controlled environment, has a taunt that is virtually worthless in groups,
> cannot pull, and so on.
Anybody can pull. Hell, enchanters pull better than tanks, because of AE
mesmerize. We had an enchanter pulling groups to us in guk live side
once...he never took any damage on the pull...send the warrior and he comes
back half dead.
JackiePrice
strengths
> and our weaknesses, and thats just like real-life. Some are stronger, some
> are smarter, etc. (ya, I know, its not "real life")
That is the question asked by someone who wants to maintain his superiority.
All classes should have equal value in groups and be generally equal pvp.
Yes, different classes should have different strengths and weaknesses to
offset each other, however, right now you are not thinking balance wise. It
isn't right that one class should be three or four times as effective as
another, in ANY situation. In this case, the mage can do EVERYTHING a
warrior can do, and do it better, in addition to being able to do some
things the warrior can't do.
JackiePrice
defeats a
> level 49 paladin.
>
> Make sure they are not buffed; including the paladin's normal buffs.
Well, on that, do you think a level 49 summoned earth elemental should beat
a level 47 paladin with full buffs? Correct that, not just beat him, but
beat him on the same scale a Sand Giant beats a level 15 warrior? That is
what happened.
Mason Barge
>I don't. I think the warrior should be INDEPENDANTLY strong enough to beat
>ANYBODY's pet if that player is within 3 levels of him.
What you think is quite clear. Why you think that this would balance the
classes is not.
It would simply make mages and necros, who are already farther down most "best
group" lists than warrior, even less attractive. It would make more sense to
say that you think wizards "should" get an extra 1000 HP. This boils down the
the same old tired "warrior can't solo therefore is unbalanced" argument. It's
wrong and is the exact reason why Verant has given mages and necros so much
vicarious melee. It's what they add to a group. You will notice that when
Verant nerfed necro pets, they promised "group friendly spells".
Warriors are completely functional and are certainly in the top half of most
desired classes in a group. Paladins, SK's and rangers are harder to get a
handle on, due to the peculiar combination of talents they have.
I will say that paladin and SK are difficult classes to play for reasons other
than their attractiveness to groups.
>Why do you believe a mage pet should be simultaneously a more powerful
>damage dealer and a more powerful damage absorber than a paladin?
Well, you only got my position half right. As to damage, the mage's principal
role is to deal damage, the majority of which is by melee. Instead of
depriving them of their most important asset, why not just reduce the number of
classes? Same difference. Nerf the mage pets and you aren't going to have
mages.
As to HP, please tell us the HP of the 49 mage's pet and the 47 paladin
involved in the single instance you recite.
Or, go ahead and nerf the pet. Just give mages greater healing and LOH.
>Anybody can pull.
No. Well, they can, but they and the others in the group will be more likely
to die. Or else the group is not going to get as much xp as it could. You are
welcome to group with a mage or necro and have him use his pet to pull if you
want. Not really optimal pulling strategy in a dungeon.
In fact, not pulling at all, since the group is going to have to go to the mob,
rather than vice versa. Otherwise, the pet will be fighting somewhere else
while the group waits for the pet to die and the mob and its train to come
screaming down suddenly on the mage.
If a pet caster used DD to pull, #1 you are going to have the mob aggro on your
lowest HP member -- your healers are going to just LOVE using all their mana
healing the player with the lowest AC -- and #2, if the pull is any distance at
all, the pet is going to rush to the mob, wherever it is, as soon as the caster
is hit. Again, not really pulling at all, but guaranteeing that you are going
to have to leave your spot to fight and likely not only killing the caster, but
killing him when he still has a lot of mana. Really not a perceptive statement
here.
> Hell, enchanters pull better than tanks, because of AE
>mesmerize. We had an enchanter pulling groups to us in guk live side
>once...he never took any damage on the pull...send the warrior and he comes
>back half dead.
You are the mistress of half the story. What happened to the enchanter AFTER
the pull? If he actually "pulled" -- leaving a group of mesmerized mobs out of
the group's sight in another part of the dungeon -- I know what happened, and
I'm surprised he (and the healers, if they were any good) agreed to it.
It is, of course, absolutely fine and often optimal to have an ench mez a crowd
prior to the onset of action if you are fighting on the scene. But this is not
"pulling" which implies that someone is bringing a mob from a distance to a set
location. Having an enchanter pull is nuts. He's going to be sitting there
with a bunch of mobs aggro'd on him waiting for the mez to break, and not
knowing what kind of company they would pick up enroute.
A warrior is supposed to be able to absorb the damage. Half HP does not mean
"half dead". It means that the healer is expending his mana on the highest AC
player and the player who will lose HP the slowest, giving the healers plenty
of time to react. That's why they get the best taunt in the game.
If you have a warrior, optimum efficiency is generally provided by having him
take all the hits (see exceptions below). It radically increases the
damage/mana of a damage shield (you did have a damage shield on this
"half-dead" warrior, right? You aren't letting your warrior lose that many
hitpoints without substantially weakening his attackers?); your casters are
never interrupted or running around to get a tank between them and a mob, or
fingering the gate button when they have plenty of mana because their HP line
has hit two bubbs and is falling fast; your healers won't make mistakes; your
group will, in short, rock.
I was in LGuk the other night myself and our tank was pulling all the way from
live side, including the uncamped minotaur elder, to the bat room. Massive xp.
Massive! Let your pulling enchanter try that. We would have taken the ghoul
ritualist too, except the group in the assassin room was pulling him. I bet
they weren't using a caster to do it, what you want to bet?
As a caveat, it is better to let all the tanks take maybe a half bubble of
damage, since they will get that all back in normal recuperation. In practice,
that is going to happen as a matter of course. And of course, if the healers
go oom or die or run, you might want everyone losing HP at the same rate
(unless a caster/healer can manage to med, in which case it might be better for
him to try to eek out one last DD/heal).
JackiePrice
In a group that contains a level 50 warrior and a level 50 mage, if the mage
summons an earth elemental, and has his proper focus item, the mage's pet is
not only more capable of doing damage, but also more capable of taking it,
with more hp and harder to hit.
A warrior, for all intents and purposes, is fulfilling the "Pet" function
for the mages in a group. That is what he does. A pet is primarily a
damage buffer, with some damage dealing ability as well. That is what a
warrior is. Sure, there is the pulling issue, but its easily dealt with in
other ways. (The enchanter mez pull worked very well, actually, Only one
actually made it right to the enchanter without being intercepted, and the
enchanter's pet peeled that one quickly.) Root pulling also works well,
etc. Necromancers can feign pull. That isn't the point. Pets are
warrior substitutes, or warriors are pet substitutes. The problem is, the
pets are better.
By the way, your earth elemental will also outdamage the average level 50
monk. How does that fit into class balance? What is the monks purpose?
Mason Barge
>God what a fucking retard.
When your testicles descend, your dick gets longer than your single toenail,
and you eventually buy a character higher than level 12 on EBay, you will
suddenly realize that color refers solely to experience earned and the level
message that goes with each color changes. Really, if I were to estimate what
"con even" means at level 47 to a solo player, I would have to say light blue.
danstrad
Sam Schlansky wrote in message <8ECEC3857vi...@207.126.101.100>...
>mason...@aol.comnospam (Mason Barge) wrote in
><20000202094511...@ng-ch1.aol.com>:
>
<snip>
>>I love both classes and
>>have strongly supported Verant's upgrades to them, but both of
>>these are made to pretty much require a group to fulfill their
>>potential. Adding these to your "melee" list simply shows a basic
>>misunderstanding of the concept of balance.
>
>Wrong. The pet that cons white should not massacre the tank. Period.
Not massacre no, but I hope you're not suggesting the pet should be much
weaker than the tank either. If pets were balanced against /con even
players, they would become *incredibly* weak. You'd end up with a half-assed
tank 8-12 (more depending on class) levels below you.
I agree a 49 meleeist should be able to kill a pet from a 49 spell, however.
>>The only outcome of nerfing mage pets would be to ensure their
>>non-inclusion in groups, which appears to be your intention.
>
>Wrong.
>
>You're so very wrong. And you're stupid, too.
>
>Sam
>
>--
>
>/| Sam Schlansky <sam[at]operation3d[dot]com>
>/| I speak for myself only unless noted otherwise.
>/| PGP Key ID: 0x63A9D707
>/| 3DNews.net: News With Perspective!
>/| 3DHardware.net: Taking Your Machine To The Third Dimension!
>/| Remove "deletethis" to email.
Twilight
>>
>> lesse, Earth pet can triple hit for 57 each round, has a 300 pt DD (
>> ever 20 secs or so ) and has around 3k hps. Delay around 20.
>>
>
>Err Twilight when did the Earth get a 300 pt DD that casts every 20 secs? My
>49 earth casts root which is a non-damage spell, hp is closer to 2400 then
>3k and the deleay is closer to 25 not 20. The triple 57's are not always
>true also - have ran the logs on my 49 earth and it comes close to about 46
>on average. Granted there are 58 pts hits, but not as often as you think.
>
opps sorry was thinking of the fire pet, me bad. Still it must be said
my friends use the focus items all the time. And its closer 3k as far
as i can see ( several wizard buddies report it took about 2 IC ( full
damage ) and a 800 point rend to kill a focused earth pet ( about 1100
per IC, plus 800 for rend )
as for the 57point hits, he hits more consistantly at that lvl than me
thats for sure. Usually i hit around the low 50- 70 range but tending
towards the high 40 over time. Pet is much more reliable than me.
as for the delay, Gordon and the eqcasters have said tha th delay is
approximately 20.9 or around 21. He cetainly hits as aster than me
with the advanatage of duel wielding
"I can picture in my mind a world without war , a world without hate . And I can picture us attacking that world because they'd never expect it. " -Jack Handey
RoadieRik
nerf on another class. I think people who bitch about other people's
classes being too powerful are the lowest of the low. I have tried every
class so far except Shaman. To me, they have all had their pluses and
minuses. I thought the druid /shaman DOT nerfs were a bad move. I thought
the necro nerfs were inhumane! My main character for most of my EQ life has
been a paladin. That is not a soloable class and not a powerful class. Who
cares! Its not like anyone was forcing me to be a paladin. And being that I
was mainly grouping I was grateful for the powers that my groupmates
possesed.
--
"Who said girls can't be gamers?"
Randy Neumann <ran...@opinc.com> wrote in message
news:urYl4.1556$nc7.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > Verrant improved things a lot with the new necro pet nerfs, toning
> necro
> > > pets down so that now they are at least similar in strength to a same
> > > levelled warrior instead of overwhelmingly stronger. Now, about mage
> > pets--
> > >
> > > A level 47 paladin dueled a mage pet that conned even to a level 41
Alasdair Allan
> Verrant improved things a lot with the new necro pet nerfs, toning necro
> pets down so that now they are at least similar in strength to a same
> levelled warrior instead of overwhelmingly stronger. Now, about mage
pets--
Its pretty sick.
My Paladin, level 36, with a Flowing Black Silk Sash and a Ghoulbane
(something in the region of 40 hours camping if I hadn't traded for them) is
outdamaged by *more* than two to one by a level 39 summoning.
The level 44 summoning (even /con) outdamages me by more than three to one
as it hits for 40+ two to four times a round while I struggle to slash a mob
for 30 twice a round (my rounds are *longer*).
But thats *not* a problem with the pet. Its a problem with the Paladin
class whom are the most underpowered in all of Norrath.
The more I play a Paladin the more I realise I was a fucking moron to *ever*
group with them (for their self healing which should help downtime). Rogues
do three times the damage and that more than makes up for them needing mana
to be spent healing them every now and again (of course with the faster kill
rate, Rogues need a *lot* less healing than Paladins).
The class is truly fucked and I would never group with one witout a Holy
Water Sprinkler or Skarlon Sword.
--
Alasdair Allan, Ibrox, Glasgow |England - Country where Marx developed
x-st...@null.net | the basis of Communism
X-Static's Rangers Webzine |Scotland - Country where Smith developed
http://www.x-static.demon.co.uk/ | the basis of Capitalism
Alasdair Allan
Mason Barge <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote in article
<20000203153203...@ng-xb1.aol.com>...
> >
> >I don't. I think the warrior should be INDEPENDANTLY strong enough to
beat
> >ANYBODY's pet if that player is within 3 levels of him.
>
> What you think is quite clear. Why you think that this would balance the
> classes is not.
>
> It would simply make mages and necros, who are already farther down most
"best
> group" lists than warrior, even less attractive. It would make more sense
to
> say that you think wizards "should" get an extra 1000 HP. This boils down
the
> the same old tired "warrior can't solo therefore is unbalanced" argument.
It's
> wrong and is the exact reason why Verant has given mages and necros so
much
> vicarious melee. It's what they add to a group. You will notice that
when
> Verant nerfed necro pets, they promised "group friendly spells".
Utter bullshit.
The *only* melée class I would even consider given a choice between a
meléeist and a Necro or Mage is the Rogue or Monk because only they have the
sort of damage needed to compete with the pet. In most cases I's still go
with the pet because as well as Roguelike damage levels you get a caster
too!
Candy
> The more I play a Paladin the more I realise I was a fucking moron to *ever*
> group with them (for their self healing which should help downtime). Rogues
> do three times the damage and that more than makes up for them needing mana
> to be spent healing them every now and again (of course with the faster kill
> rate, Rogues need a *lot* less healing than Paladins).
>
> The class is truly fucked and I would never group with one witout a Holy
> Water Sprinkler or Skarlon Sword.
The thing I like most is that they pay a rather large exp penalty to be that awful.
-Andriana Candy
-Andriana Duskrose, Fennin Ro
Mason Barge
>meléeist and a Necro or Mage is the Rogue or Monk because only they have the
>sort of damage needed to compete with the pet. In most cases I's still go
>with the pet because as well as Roguelike damage levels you get a caster
>too!
Another watery green contribution to a river of sewage.
Of course, if your sole criterion for playing a melee class is ability to do
damage -- well, you can attach whatever criteria you want to your choices of
what class to play.
Unfortunately, no matter how much you resemble one in real life, you don't get
to play a pet. You have to play a pet-owning PC, with all the associated
penalties and
benefits.
The theoretical "best" pet class -- mage -- is below warriors, clerics, and
enchanters on my personal wish list for a group, and really it is not the pet
but the power of the fireshield that would make me want to include a mage
rather than a necro in the "optimal" group.
Yeah, sure, I'd rather have a mage in my group than a monk but ONLY if there is
a higher HP player to tank. I like the central-tank model for a group due to
the ease and mana efficiency of damage-shielding and healing a principal
defensive melee character. Since I'm not going to have a wiz in the group, I'd
prefer a mage to a monk/wiz combo, since the mage's melee output will be
considerable (but NOT comparable to the monk's, I don't give a rat's ass what
some bean brain claims), he has the best fireshield for the tank, and a nice DD
spell if a mob needs burning.
But tell me this. How often, in a well-played group, is a mage going to use
DD? Almost never, unless there is no other method of crowd-control or
runner-control.
So just what in the hell are you going to give the mage that will make him as
useful to a group as a monk, warrior, cleric, shaman, or druid?
Adar
Alasdair Allan <posth...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:01bf6f0f$a65f01a0$cd0201c0@dell40...
> JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote
> > Verrant improved things a lot with the new necro pet nerfs, toning
necro
> > pets down so that now they are at least similar in strength to a same
> > levelled warrior instead of overwhelmingly stronger. Now, about mage
> pets--
> > [...]
>
> Its pretty sick.
>
(snip)
> The [paladin] class is truly fucked and I would never group with one
witout a Holy
> Water Sprinkler or Skarlon Sword.
>
If you think it's bad *now*, wait 'till the mid-40's. GB in the mid 40's is
a toothpick- it's actually got about the same ratio as a LoW.
But if you really think rogues are so great...play one. With the planar
weapons they get, it's entirely possible they do the damage you think they
do- but I guarantee you won't get there unless you powerdruid it.
Brudo (E'ci)
Loredaeron (E'ci)
Mason Barge
>The level 44 summoning (even /con) outdamages me by more than three to one
>as it hits for 40+ two to four times a round while I struggle to slash a mob
>for 30 twice a round (my rounds are *longer*).
>
This comparison is just bizarre. Why don't you compare yourself to the mage at
the same level instead of whining about one WAY higher than you?
Your 36 mage's pet is, MAXIMUM, going to hit for about 34, 30, 12 per round.
Damage per round for an average focussed earth pet is going to be about 40, for
an average focussed water or air pet somewhat higher, although it is nearly
impossible to quantify actual spell damage. Some rounds they will hit for a
single 3.
So quit the distortions.
Unless you have suddenly decided mages should throw a ton of DD, the practical
difference is that the mage has fireshield and the paladin has healing, which
one would assume they share to each other's advantage.
The mage also has significantly lower HP, may I point out, and don't start
spouting a bunch of bullshit about the pet's HP. Nobody gives a rat's ass if
the pet lives or dies, it's whether the PC lives or dies that's important and
the pet's death is significant only insofar as in decreases the likelihood of
group members living. The group gets mostly as much advantage from a pet's HP
as the owner.
>But thats *not* a problem with the pet. Its a problem with the Paladin
>class whom are the most underpowered in all of Norrath.
>
Soulfire.
>
>The class is truly fucked and I would never group with one witout a Holy
>Water Sprinkler or Skarlon Sword.
>
Paladin is a great class to play for roleplayers or people trying to have fun
who want a lot of difficult challenges. It is not a good choice for
power-gamers due to the difficulty of armor and item acquisition.
I love having a paladin or two in the group because they tend to be more
intelligent, mature and downright fun than other tank classes. Whiners simply
won't play the class into the 40's.
The best puller I ever had was a pally, and that LOH really does help if he can
manage to make no more than one horrendously bad pull per day, i.e. one where
he can't get back to the group before he loses 5 bubbs of HP (even with a good
healer running out to meet him). More than that and he deserves to die out of
sheer incompetence.
I do think Verant ought to do a more accurate description of the class.
The pally items are damn hard to get and he'd better be good at making friends.
(Unfortunately, this involves dying a lot, making paladin EVEN HARDER to play
correctly.)
I have a lot of paladins in my guild and I spend half my time getting melatite
(thank heaven SolA critters drop obsidian jewelry, impskin gloves, molten
cloak, and so many other lovely things), granite, trying to kill Sir Lucan,
etc.
Playing a paladin or SK is indeed a different game than playing other classes.
But a lot of players look on high-level paladins (and to some degree clerics)
with a different degree of respect than other PCs.
I see a level 50 paladin with a flaming sword and, I have to admit, I actually
get a roleplaying thrill that no other PC can provide. Now THERE is a knight
of holiness, shining armor and all. It is the only player whom I will greet by
kneeling.
Marc Fuller
A level 49 pet represents the absolute peak of a magician's power. Magicians
*always* get a performance spike at the level where they can get their newest
pet, and have to suffer through a major efficiency sag in the level just before
that. Your paladin was essentially fighting the most powerful aspect of a
character two full levels higher. Paladins are also not meant to be the best at
melee, ever. Rangers, Warriors, Monks, and even Rogues are *all* supposed to be
better at dishing out damage. The trade-off for a Paladin is that they can cast
semi-decent healing spells and a few nice buffs. If you wanted to run a fairer
test, your Magician should either have been level 47 as well, or should have
summoned the level 44 pet.
Pets are not better than tanks in all situations. They are vastly inferior at
taunting, they are stupid as bricks, and will often fight an attacker that their
owner would rather they didn't. Because of pathing problems, and the fact that
high-level pets are often green, they are best used as a heavy weapons
emplacement in a camp. They are *much* less than ideal for moving around in a
dungeon. The whole point of having different classes, is that some classes are
*BETTER* than others in certain situations. Druids are the absolute masters of
the outdoors, but they can't melee worth a damn, and a good chunk of their
spiffiest spells don't work in "true" underground areas. Necromancers are
incredibly powerful, which is offset by the fact that just about everything on
Norrath wants to kill them. Wizards have the best nukes in the game, and for a
short burst, they can exceed the damage output of *any* other class. On the
other hand, they can't do squat if they're being pounded on, and if they blow
the crap out of one creature, they won't have enough mana to kill its
companions. To offset this, they have Root and teleport and evac spells to
encourage you to group with them even when they can't nuke. Warriors have the
best AC and HP of any class, which means that they are less likely to take
damage, and better able to absorb it. (If a mob jumps on my Magician, even in a
group with two Clerics, and I drop to two bubbles of health, I am one dead Dark
Elf. A warrior who drops to the same point is probably typing a pissed off tell
at the clerics to get off their butts, unless we just got ran over by a train,
in which case we're all dead anyway.) Magicians can deal out enormous amounts
of sustained damage, but they have such low armor and hitpoints that it isn't
even funny at higher levels. On their own, they can't root, they can't buff,
and nuking is likely to either get them killed, or get them kicked (because
their group is pissed that they're med'ing all the time.) If you were in a new
zone, that didn't allow pets, tell me that you'd choose a Magician over *ANY*
other class. A Magician without a pet isn't totally useless, because of their
damage shields, but if you also have a Druid in your group, they sure don't add
much.
Marc Fuller
Billy Shields
: JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote
:> Verrant improved things a lot with the new necro pet nerfs, toning necro
:> pets down so that now they are at least similar in strength to a same
:> levelled warrior instead of overwhelmingly stronger. Now, about mage
: pets--
:> [...]
: Its pretty sick.
: My Paladin, level 36, with a Flowing Black Silk Sash and a Ghoulbane
: (something in the region of 40 hours camping if I hadn't traded for them) is
: outdamaged by *more* than two to one by a level 39 summoning.
The GB is not the way to do damage. The ratio (including FBSS
assuming 15% haste) is roughly 0.504. The GZ would give you 0.531.
A mith 2her would give you 0.7. The Skarlon sword would be 0.719.
Its only worth using GB vs undead. Otherwise its just a poor 2h
weapon you can use a shield with.
: The level 44 summoning (even /con) outdamages me by more than three to one
: as it hits for 40+ two to four times a round while I struggle to slash a mob
: for 30 twice a round (my rounds are *longer*).
What about tanking ability?
: But thats *not* a problem with the pet. Its a problem with the Paladin
: class whom are the most underpowered in all of Norrath.
Now thats nonsense. You certainly can't put the paladin of SKs
(in the sucking stakes). Its debatable whether paladins beat
rogues too. And paladins are still an awful lot better than
wizards (arguably clerics as well).
: The more I play a Paladin the more I realise I was a fucking moron to *ever*
: group with them (for their self healing which should help downtime). Rogues
: do three times the damage and that more than makes up for them needing mana
: to be spent healing them every now and again (of course with the faster kill
: rate, Rogues need a *lot* less healing than Paladins).
Rogues are extremely fragile though. Damage output isn't everything.
Its probably 80-90% but not 100%.
: The class is truly fucked and I would never group with one witout a Holy
: Water Sprinkler or Skarlon Sword.
I'd probably agree with that. At the high end I'd take a monk,
warrior, ranger or rogue ahead of a paladin but probably a paladin
ahead of an SK.
Joshua L. Ayers
other class will make playing my class more enjoyable. I don't care what
other people do. If the grass seems greener on the other side, than move
over I am coming, hehe. As for the pet vs. <insert class here> arguments, I
can only assume that this is a PvP server complaint. I say this primarily
because, what difference does it make whether or not someone's pet could
kick my butt. I'm not fighting the pet for loot, nor for experience, nor
for a quest item. And, dualling is a hell of a lot different than fighting
against NPCs. My rogue could do a lot of damage against even higher level
PCs than he could against similar level NPCs because of the way the dualling
works vs. the way NPCs work. Ever notice how if you are standing behind a
Mob in combat, it can turn around so fast that it's back becomes it's face
and you never see it take the time to turn around? This is only one
instant, but with my rogue I could run "through" a player and backstab them
while they and their lag took a minute to realize I was not in front of them
anymore and start the slow process of turning around to find me.
Player vs. Player quite simply is a whole different beast than Player vs.
Non player. And nerfing others won't make you feel that much better.
JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
news:4HWl4.15948$gi.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Verrant improved things a lot with the new necro pet nerfs, toning necro
> pets down so that now they are at least similar in strength to a same
> levelled warrior instead of overwhelmingly stronger. Now, about mage
pets--
>
Adar
Joshua L. Ayers <jay...@dklb.net> wrote in message
news:RWsn4.4099$zf1....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> As for the pet vs. <insert class here> arguments, I
> can only assume that this is a PvP server complaint.
Nope.
> I say this primarily
> because, what difference does it make whether or not someone's pet could
> kick my butt.
Because if it consistently does that, the next time you need a group, you
might just have a pet taken over you. Yes, this *was* an issue for melees
vs. necros pre-patch.
> And, dualling is a hell of a lot different than fighting
> against NPCs. My rogue could do a lot of damage against even higher level
> PCs than he could against similar level NPCs because of the way the
dualling
> works vs. the way NPCs work. Ever notice how if you are standing behind a
> Mob in combat, it can turn around so fast that it's back becomes it's face
> and you never see it take the time to turn around? This is only one
> instant, but with my rogue I could run "through" a player and backstab
them
> while they and their lag took a minute to realize I was not in front of
them
> anymore and start the slow process of turning around to find me.
>
Right. But we're measuring combat performance of a pet vs. the player. Not
only is your lag-backstab useless vs. an NPC, the pet is a lot more
effective as well- since it only does 66% damage in a duel. And they were
*still* beating people, even with that restriction on them.
Alasdair Allan
> Alasdair Allan <posth...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > Its pretty sick.
>
> > The [paladin] class is truly fucked and I would never group with one
> witout a Holy
> > Water Sprinkler or Skarlon Sword.
> >
>
is
> a toothpick- it's actually got about the same ratio as a LoW.
Yep but at least it lets you use your Third Attack which switching to
Gigantic Zweihander, for example, wouldn't and as a lower delay weapon than
most 2handers it does have the advantage of Magic Number bias.
My last hope is for the promised new weapons. But thats two patches since
they were announced and *still* no sign. Not forgetting that they would
likely involve many hours camping a rare spawn. If that is the case, I'm
giving up (although I will get a new lease of life at 39 with GHeal meaning
I don't have to constantly rely on root to solo anything).
> But if you really think rogues are so great...play one. With the planar
> weapons they get, it's entirely possible they do the damage you think they
> do- but I guarantee you won't get there unless you powerdruid it.
Given that I had the choice - Rogue or Paladin and went Paladin, I'm an
idiot. Huge mistake, you can never find a Rogue at high levels and Paladins
are two a penny. I need rogues to be effective (Paladin stun - Rogue
backstab) as it is I'm just a low HP warrior with half the damage output.
I finally took the time to switch to AC at the /auction on Sunday and I've
added about 60 AC and 160 HPs. I'll see what difference that makes this
week. I was disappointed at just 60 extra AC but it *should* be noticeable
at least.
Alasdair Allan
> >But thats *not* a problem with the pet. Its a problem with the Paladin
> >class whom are the most underpowered in all of Norrath.
> >
>
Soulfire is a 2h slash weapon. Therefore no Third Attack. It also has, for
a level 45+ only weapon, average stats.
> >The class is truly fucked and I would never group with one witout a Holy
> >Water Sprinkler or Skarlon Sword.
>
> Paladin is a great class to play for roleplayers or people trying to have
fun
> who want a lot of difficult challenges.
Roleplay such as becoming KoS slaughtering non-evil Gnomes? Having to prize
the *only* correctly designed Holy Sword in the game from the cold dead
fingers of a fellow Paladin?
> It is not a good choice for
> power-gamers due to the difficulty of armor and item acquisition.
> I love having a paladin or two in the group because they tend to be more
> intelligent, mature and downright fun than other tank classes. Whiners
simply
> won't play the class into the 40's.
We aren't talking difficulty. We are talking about things that range from
*tedium* (Armour of Ro) through to *moronic* (lack of 1h slash and blunt
Paladin weapons with 2h stats, Soul Fire).
> Playing a paladin or SK is indeed a different game than playing other
classes.
> But a lot of players look on high-level paladins (and to some degree
clerics)
> with a different degree of respect than other PCs.
Why? Desite the fact they are underpowered and partially dead weight in a
group, it isn't harder to level a Paladin than any other class. Your XP
penalty is shared with all others you group with, you progress at the same
rate.
Any class, even Wizards can be levelled effectively. That doesn't make up
for the fact there have been some *very* stupid decisions made in the class
design.
> I see a level 50 paladin with a flaming sword and, I have to admit, I
actually
> get a roleplaying thrill that no other PC can provide. Now THERE is a
knight
> of holiness, shining armor and all. It is the only player whom I will
greet by
> kneeling.
Yeah, then he goes down to Lower Guk, puts away the Soul Fire and pulls out
the Ghoulbane he looted from a noble Paladin he slew in cold blood...
Hell, I've *still* never seen a Paladin in Lower Guk that wasn't KoS to
living Frogloks (except me).
Alasdair Allan
> Alasdair Allan <posth...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> : My Paladin, level 36, with a Flowing Black Silk Sash and a Ghoulbane
> : (something in the region of 40 hours camping if I hadn't traded for
them) is
> : outdamaged by *more* than two to one by a level 39 summoning.
>
> The GB is not the way to do damage. The ratio (including FBSS
> assuming 15% haste) is roughly 0.504. The GZ would give you 0.531.
> A mith 2her would give you 0.7. The Skarlon sword would be 0.719.
With Bash, the Ghoulbane is as good damage wise as the Gigantic Zweihander
(probably better as lower delay is superior with similar ratios).
As for a Mith 2h, well I don't camp and I've run out of items on my Shaman
to trade (no-one wants a Manastone, dunno what people are doing to level
Wizards, Clerics and Druids :-) so it's not an option.
The FBSS is Eduin's and there is *no* way I'm trading that off to get a Mith
2hander as my Shaman misses his haste greatly.
> Its only worth using GB vs undead. Otherwise its just a poor 2h
> weapon you can use a shield with.
Fingers crossed that there is something nice when the new Paldin and
Shadowknight weapons appear.
> : The level 44 summoning (even /con) outdamages me by more than three to
one
> : as it hits for 40+ two to four times a round while I struggle to slash a
mob
> : for 30 twice a round (my rounds are *longer*).
>
> What about tanking ability?
Lessee, its got more hit points and, well, the mobs prefer the PC as a
target so it doesn't really matter.
> : But thats *not* a problem with the pet. Its a problem with the Paladin
> : class whom are the most underpowered in all of Norrath.
>
> Now thats nonsense. You certainly can't put the paladin of SKs
> (in the sucking stakes). Its debatable whether paladins beat
> rogues too. And paladins are still an awful lot better than
> wizards (arguably clerics as well).
At leat SKs can do *some* mana damage to the mob.
> : The more I play a Paladin the more I realise I was a fucking moron to
*ever*
> : group with them (for their self healing which should help downtime).
Rogues
> : do three times the damage and that more than makes up for them needing
mana
> : to be spent healing them every now and again (of course with the faster
kill
> : rate, Rogues need a *lot* less healing than Paladins).
>
> Rogues are extremely fragile though. Damage output isn't everything.
> Its probably 80-90% but not 100%.
Rogues have twice the output and only lose something in the region of 25% on
defence. Even *before* you take into account that output is *so* much more
important than defence, the Rogue wins.
Alasdair Allan
> >The *only* melée class I would even consider given a choice between a
> >meléeist and a Necro or Mage is the Rogue or Monk because only they have
the
> >sort of damage needed to compete with the pet. In most cases I's still
go
> >with the pet because as well as Roguelike damage levels you get a caster
> >too!
>
> Another watery green contribution to a river of sewage.
>
> Of course, if your sole criterion for playing a melee class is ability to
do
> damage -- well, you can attach whatever criteria you want to your choices
of
> what class to play.
No, I base it on damage output.
Outside the Planes, "tanking ability", the ability to sustain damaging hits,
is pretty irrelevant. What matters is "damage control" - Togor's, Entrance,
the Shaman/Enchanter tools.
In that situation, all that matters is damage output and only a Rogue or
Monk can get close to the Pets.
> [...]
> But tell me this. How often, in a well-played group, is a mage going to
use
> DD? Almost never, unless there is no other method of crowd-control or
> runner-control.
>
> So just what in the hell are you going to give the mage that will make him
as
> useful to a group as a monk, warrior, cleric, shaman, or druid?
I guess you are another of the clueless people who don't know what a Damage
Shield is. And before you say "the druid can..." the Magician Damage Shield
is about 20% better.
Mason Barge
>Outside the Planes, "tanking ability", the ability to sustain damaging hits,
>is pretty irrelevant.
Utter dogshit. This doesn't even need a response.
>> So just what in the hell are you going to give the mage that will make him
>as
>> useful to a group as a monk, warrior, cleric, shaman, or druid?
>
>I guess you are another of the clueless people who don't know what a Damage
>Shield is. And before you say "the druid can..." the Magician Damage Shield
>is about 20% better.
I guess I'm damn well not.
"Oh boy, a mage, let's get him. His damage shield is 20% better than the
Druid's. And since the ability to sustain damaging hits is meaningless, he can
tank too. Gosh, he'll be able to do 25 dmg every time Lady Vox hits him!
That'll ensure victory!"
rsc...@fastlane.net
"Alasdair Allan" <postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Mason Barge <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote
> > >The *only* melée class I would even consider given a choice
between a
> > >meléeist and a Necro or Mage is the Rogue or Monk because only
they have
> the
> > >sort of damage needed to compete with the pet. In most cases I's
still
> go
> > >with the pet because as well as Roguelike damage levels you get a
caster
> > >too!
> >
> > Another watery green contribution to a river of sewage.
> >
> > Of course, if your sole criterion for playing a melee class is
ability to
> do
> > damage -- well, you can attach whatever criteria you want to your
choices
> of
> > what class to play.
>
> No, I base it on damage output.
>
damaging hits,
Entrance,
> the Shaman/Enchanter tools.
>
> In that situation, all that matters is damage output and only a Rogue
or
> Monk can get close to the Pets.
>
> > [...]
> > But tell me this. How often, in a well-played group, is a mage
going to
> use
> > DD? Almost never, unless there is no other method of crowd-control
or
> > runner-control.
> >
make him
> as
> > useful to a group as a monk, warrior, cleric, shaman, or druid?
>
> I guess you are another of the clueless people who don't know what a
Damage
> Shield is. And before you say "the druid can..." the Magician Damage
Shield
> is about 20% better.
>
Didn't you also say snare is worthless?
I'm amazed anyone who's actually played the game would ever take you
serious after that.
For the record Mages are VERY useful for a group. The only non-useful
class in the game is one played by an idiot. Or a bigoted person who
doesn't understand the abilities of others classes and has a pet
complex.
Of course most people care about their fellow players. There are a few
who are statistical mongers, like the above poster, who obviously could
care less about people, and worries more about classes. What a shame.
"Sorry, depart brave Ranger, you do not have a pet!" Despite the fact
you are a great fellow, I do not like your abilities!
Soloing is ALWAYS faster for experience so this silly group efficient
experience concept is ridiculous.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mason Barge
>fun
>> who want a lot of difficult challenges.
>
>Roleplay such as becoming KoS slaughtering non-evil Gnomes? Having to prize
>the *only* correctly designed Holy Sword in the game from the cold dead
>fingers of a fellow Paladin?
This is certainly an accurate criticism. I will stand by my statements, but
you are absolutely correct that Verant made some terrible decisions in this
regard.
I can see how it would be possible to make a consistent story line for
Ghoulbane, along the lines of Lancelot's fatal flaw, but they haven't done it.
And why don't they just put Sir Lucan in Ogguk or Neriak?
And don't tell ME paladins aren't better roleplayers than most others. Fill in
the blank: "_______________ says 'Run. It is my duty to stand and die to
protect your retreat.'"
Go ahead, be sarcastic. "Fucking moron" is the wrong answer, "Paladin
Holysword" is the correct one.
Of course, they do find me willing to spend 8 hours with them killing
clockworks on my day off, but holiness and virtue should be rewarded.
Billy Shields
Um, do you actually know what you're talking about here? The
magician and druid shields are *exactly* the same (in terms of
damage done per hit taken)--the magician damage shield simply
has a fire resistance buff component as well. That is the
ONLY difference.
Does that make it 20% better? Hardly. Its useful in certain
situations and irrelevant in others (eg I can't think of the last
time I needed fire resistance in Permafrost).
So tell me: how is the magician damage shield 20% better?
Billy Shields
: Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote
:> Alasdair Allan <posth...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:> : My Paladin, level 36, with a Flowing Black Silk Sash and a Ghoulbane
:> : (something in the region of 40 hours camping if I hadn't traded for
: them) is
:> : outdamaged by *more* than two to one by a level 39 summoning.
:>
:> The GB is not the way to do damage. The ratio (including FBSS
:> assuming 15% haste) is roughly 0.504. The GZ would give you 0.531.
:> A mith 2her would give you 0.7. The Skarlon sword would be 0.719.
: With Bash, the Ghoulbane is as good damage wise as the Gigantic Zweihander
: (probably better as lower delay is superior with similar ratios).
You're right--I wasn't factoring in Bash. Then again I have a hard
time comprehending why tank types wouldn't be a large race if they
had that choice (for slam). i guess paladins don't have that
choice and neither do rangers. Interestingly, it may make
barbarian rogues a pretty darn good race/class combo. You can
have 105 starting dex and you get slam as well. Granted bash
never goes up but that gives you four attacks: primary, offhand,
backstab and slam.
: As for a Mith 2h, well I don't camp and I've run out of items on my Shaman
: to trade (no-one wants a Manastone, dunno what people are doing to level
: Wizards, Clerics and Druids :-) so it's not an option.
Every high level SK or paladin NEEDS a mith 2her to compete.
: The FBSS is Eduin's and there is *no* way I'm trading that off to get a Mith
: 2hander as my Shaman misses his haste greatly.
I probably wouldn't trade the FBSS either but that still doesn't
change the fact that you need a good weapon.
:> Its only worth using GB vs undead. Otherwise its just a poor 2h
:> weapon you can use a shield with.
: Fingers crossed that there is something nice when the new Paldin and
: Shadowknight weapons appear.
I wouldn't hold your breath.
:> : The level 44 summoning (even /con) outdamages me by more than three to
: one
:> : as it hits for 40+ two to four times a round while I struggle to slash a
: mob
:> : for 30 twice a round (my rounds are *longer*).
:>
:> What about tanking ability?
: Lessee, its got more hit points and, well, the mobs prefer the PC as a
: target so it doesn't really matter.
It does if what you're fighting uses AE attacks. I think the main
point of the paladin is to take damage though. Since the game
first started that ability has become less important to the playing
public so I guess by extension the paladin (and SK) have become
less worthwhile (mainly those two because they don't have dual
wield).
:> : But thats *not* a problem with the pet. Its a problem with the Paladin
:> : class whom are the most underpowered in all of Norrath.
:>
:> Now thats nonsense. You certainly can't put the paladin of SKs
:> (in the sucking stakes). Its debatable whether paladins beat
:> rogues too. And paladins are still an awful lot better than
:> wizards (arguably clerics as well).
: At leat SKs can do *some* mana damage to the mob.
Oh yay. I think the paladin's stun, root and LoH are arguably
much more useful than anything an SK can do (except maybe the
darkness line they get even though they're resisted a lot).
:> : The more I play a Paladin the more I realise I was a fucking moron to
: *ever*
:> : group with them (for their self healing which should help downtime).
: Rogues
:> : do three times the damage and that more than makes up for them needing
: mana
:> : to be spent healing them every now and again (of course with the faster
: kill
:> : rate, Rogues need a *lot* less healing than Paladins).
:>
:> Rogues are extremely fragile though. Damage output isn't everything.
:> Its probably 80-90% but not 100%.
: Rogues have twice the output and only lose something in the region of 25% on
: defence. Even *before* you take into account that output is *so* much more
: important than defence, the Rogue wins.
Quite possibly true. It does have some caveats however. The general
tactic for taking down multiples efficiently seems to rely on
chloroplast, lots of tanks, a method of debuffing monster attacks
and the tanks spreading out the damage. Rogues make it REALLY
hard to spread out the damage unless you have more than one of
them (tag team backstab can be very effective) due to backstab's
high taunt value. Therefore a rogue's fragility is more of an
issue because they're more likely to get hit. Interestingly,
a paladin's tanking ability becomes less important because their
low damage output means they're less likely to get hit.
Levelling up I found this to be the main problem: rogues, due to
backstab and good damage output (mainly due to their higher dual
wield level caps earlier on) they'd just get hit too much and
it'd be near impossible to taunt the monsters off.
Rogues probably are rewarding at high level but its a long hard
road. I certainly only know of 3 45+ rogues on my server (Fennin
Ro).
Cyrus
the meleer stuns the caster a couple of times and cuts him to pieces?The pet
dies before it gets the chance to finish the game and the meleer wins.It's
not about pc vs pet its about pc vs pc with pet.The pet has to be tough
enough to give the melee classes something to be afraid of while they are
trying to cut up the caster.Only a real dumbass would stand fighting the pet
while its owner rained down shit on their heads.
Lets not suggest anymore nerfs of any kind in case someone picks up on it.
Sam Schlansky wrote in message <8ECEC3857vi...@207.126.101.100>...
>mason...@aol.comnospam (Mason Barge) wrote in
><20000202094511...@ng-ch1.aol.com>:
>
>>>41 player.
>>
>>level was the mage who summoned the pet, please?
>
>The mage was level 49, only the highest level pets are 41.
>
>>What level was the pet?
>
>He just said, 41.
>
>>If by "even" you mean a pet summoned by a 49 mage that
>>conned black to the paladin, it darn well better beat him, or the
>>mage won't be able to kill green mobs.
>
>No, you're absolutely wrong. The pet is worse than a PC of the same
>level-- that is NOT right.
>
>>>it was an earth pet and resisted all
>>>root and stun attempts the paladin tried to use.
>>
>>pally.
>
>They were the SAME level, you dumbass.
>
>>> Any paladin, shadowknight, bard, rogue, monk,
>>>warrior, or ranger should defeat one of these pets without
>>>flinching
>>
>>from someone who thinks that melee should be the only powerful
>>character in the game.
>
>The level 41 earth pet has around 2650HP and quad-attacks for 58. How
>can a level 41 paladin beat that?
>
>>Sure, let a bard outmelee mage pets, just
>>make sure you give the mage some sort of regen, healing, and
>>clarity-type spell in return.
>
>Stupid fuck.
>
>>I WOULD agree that a pally, monk or SK should outmelee a mage pet
>>AT THE CORRECT LEVEL, but this is already 100% true, despite your
>>horrendously distorted "example".
>
>Wrong.
>
>>Pets might actually outdamage a pally/SK at the appropriate level,
>>depending on equipment, but will have much less HP and be unable
>>to heal. A good monk will slaughter a mage pet at the correct
>>level.
>
>Wrong.
>
>>A rogue or especially a bard must have solo melee problems in
>>order to balance them for group play.
>
>That's the first correct thing you've said.
>
>>I love both classes and
>>have strongly supported Verant's upgrades to them, but both of
>>these are made to pretty much require a group to fulfill their
>>potential. Adding these to your "melee" list simply shows a basic
>>misunderstanding of the concept of balance.
>
>Wrong. The pet that cons white should not massacre the tank. Period.
>
Mason Barge
>: is about 20% better.
>
>Um, do you actually know what you're talking about here?
Billy, my experience is the same as his, that is, the mage damage shield hits
for about 20% more damage than the druid/ranger thorn series. In fact in my
experience, the mage fireshield hits for exactly level/2 while the thorn shield
hits for slightly less.
mida...@my-deja.com
rsc...@fastlane.net wrote:
> Soloing is ALWAYS faster for experience so this silly group efficient
> experience concept is ridiculous.
Not in my experience. And I play a NECROMANCER.
If you can find a spot where you won't run out of blue MoBs, members of
a group will do better than soloists. Pet classes are actually one of
the biggest beneficiaries.
Before about 40, or off prime time regardless, finding an endless stream
of blue MoBs is not really that difficult.
I solo when the only people around are people I already dislike, or when
I'm feeling like a loner.
OTOH, if you insist on doing Oasis-Crocs-SK-Aviaks-Everywhere-Giants
sequence, you WILL do better at that soloing. Of course, good luck
finding MoBs.
You would level faster in a half decent group in Cazic pulling from the
maze.
Jeff
"Mason Barge" <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000208110950...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> >the Magician Damage Shield
> >: is about 20% better.
> >
> >Um, do you actually know what you're talking about here?
>
> Billy, my experience is the same as his, that is, the mage damage shield
hits
> for about 20% more damage than the druid/ranger thorn series. In fact in
my
> experience, the mage fireshield hits for exactly level/2 while the thorn
shield
> hits for slightly less.
The druid damage shield is equivalent, but only if you include the 'XXXcoat'
spell as well. There is an added benefit to the druid one though... fire
resistance does not decrease the effectiveness of ours.
Laedain Oakwarder, 34th Woodelf Druid, Tarew Marr
mida...@my-deja.com
"JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
> Verrant improved things a lot with the new necro pet nerfs,
> toning necro pets down so that now they are at least similar in
> strength to a same levelled warrior instead of overwhelmingly
> stronger. Now, about mage pets--
> A level 47 paladin dueled a mage pet that conned even to a level 41
> player. 6 levels separated the paladin, and the pet. The pet not
> only won, but had not yet taken 20% health damage. It massacred the
> paladin. There was no contest. Tactics were not an issue, it was an
> earth pet and resisted all root and stun attempts the paladin tried
> to use. The paladin also used Lay Hands on himself (successfully)
> and managed a greater heal or two on himself...still lost badly.
>
> Never should a pet lower level than a PC melee character even have a
> hope of defeating the melee class. Any paladin, shadowknight, bard,
> rogue, monk, warrior, or ranger should defeat one of these pets
> without flinching. This is NOT balanced.
>
> It could be that you are happy with pet balance in relation
> to each other, but are you happy with them in relation to the melee
> classes?
This whole setup sounds bogus. I've got some questions.
Did the pet have a damage sheild from the magician?
Did the pet get Burnout III from the magician?
If the answer to either of these questions is yes. Did the warrior get
equivalent buffs?
Even if I'm surprised by the answers, I won't begrudge the magician
damage output. He gets no utility spells to speak of, and has to play
the most fragile character in the game.
mida...@my-deja.com
"Prh1966" <prh...@erols.com> wrote:
> Maybe that level 47 Pally should duel a level 41 Warrior just to
> see where the Paladin really stands in melee combat...
> my money would be on the Warrior
Shhhhhhhh.
Hard-core paladins have enough ego problems as it is.
Mason Barge
>The druid damage shield is equivalent, but only if you include the 'XXXcoat'
>spell as well.
Right, but you can't throw the xxxcoat spell on other PC's, it is self only.
So while a mage's fireshield series on the tank is going to do 15 dmg at level
30 (if memory serves), the druid/ranger bramble shield will be doing about 12
when cast on another PC, although the bramblecoat will add both AC and @ 3dmg
to the druid/ranger himself.
I might be one point or so off on the damage amounts, but Alasdair's 20% figure
was about right IMHO for a second-party damage shield. This IS a mage asset in
a group, especially if the druid needs his mana for healing anyway.
Mason Barge
>resistance does not decrease the effectiveness of ours.
>
ANNNK! Fire resistance does not affect the mage fireshield series (or at
least, I have never seen it). It hits for full damage every time against every
mob melee.
NBarnes
> Alasdair Allan <posth...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> : I guess you are another of the clueless people who don't know
> : what a Damage Shield is. And before you say "the druid can..."
> : the Magician Damage Shield is about 20% better.
> Um, do you actually know what you're talking about here? The
> magician and druid shields are *exactly* the same (in terms of
> damage done per hit taken)--the magician damage shield simply
> has a fire resistance buff component as well. That is the
> ONLY difference.
>
> Does that make it 20% better? Hardly. Its useful in certain
> situations and irrelevant in others (eg I can't think of the last
> time I needed fire resistance in Permafrost).
>
> So tell me: how is the magician damage shield 20% better?
Magician damage shields _used_ to do about 20% more damage than
druid ones. I'm not sure when they changed it (I only found out
that they did researching this post at castersrealm), but apparently
magician damage shields have been cut back. They are still better,
by a point or two, generally, than druid ones, but not 20% better
anymore.
NBarnes - Dina Demeteran, 47th circle druid, Sol Ro
Billy Shields
:>
:>The druid damage shield is equivalent, but only if you include the 'XXXcoat'
:>spell as well.
: Right, but you can't throw the xxxcoat spell on other PC's, it is self only.
: So while a mage's fireshield series on the tank is going to do 15 dmg at level
: 30 (if memory serves), the druid/ranger bramble shield will be doing about 12
: when cast on another PC, although the bramblecoat will add both AC and @ 3dmg
: to the druid/ranger himself.
: I might be one point or so off on the damage amounts, but Alasdair's 20% figure
: was about right IMHO for a second-party damage shield. This IS a mage asset in
: a group, especially if the druid needs his mana for healing anyway.
Yep, you're right. My mistake. Though with the highest level spell
(Shields of Thorns vs. Shield of Lava) the damagge shield amounts
are 24 and 25 (respectively).
More reason why I want to be something other than a druid *sigh*.
Marc Fuller
>
> "Mason Barge" <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:20000208110950...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> > >: is about 20% better.
> > >
> > >Um, do you actually know what you're talking about here?
> >
> hits
> > for about 20% more damage than the druid/ranger thorn series. In fact in
> my
> > experience, the mage fireshield hits for exactly level/2 while the thorn
> shield
> > hits for slightly less.
>
> resistance does not decrease the effectiveness of ours.
>
As far as I know, fire resistance doesn't reduce the damage from a magician's
fire shields. The damage is unresistable. I've tanked against fire elementals
(at level 16-17) and never, ever saw a resistance message, or a single blow that
burned it for less than maximum damage for my shield.
Marc Fuller
guess away
resistance helps us take less damage from fireshields, but it's
irresistable to mobs. Wonder how long it'll take them to nerf that?
On 08 Feb 2000 19:26:31 GMT, mason...@aol.comnospam (Mason Barge)
wrote:
>> There is an added benefit to the druid one though... fire
>>resistance does not decrease the effectiveness of ours.
>>
>
Alasdair Allan
> Alasdair Allan <posth...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> : With Bash, the Ghoulbane is as good damage wise as the Gigantic
Zweihander
> : (probably better as lower delay is superior with similar ratios).
>
> You're right--I wasn't factoring in Bash. Then again I have a hard
> time comprehending why tank types wouldn't be a large race if they
> had that choice (for slam). i guess paladins don't have that
> choice and neither do rangers. Interestingly, it may make
> barbarian rogues a pretty darn good race/class combo. You can
> have 105 starting dex and you get slam as well. Granted bash
> never goes up but that gives you four attacks: primary, offhand,
> backstab and slam.
Nope. Slam is the same cycle as Third Attack so it will use up the
opportunity to use Kick, Bash, Backstab, whatever. Slam is as useful to a
Rogue (over level 10) as Kick is - not at all. Even when used from the
front, Backstab is a normal attack and that is better than any kick.
*Possibly* you might want to use it against casters. Possibly.
> : As for a Mith 2h, well I don't camp and I've run out of items on my
Shaman
> : to trade (no-one wants a Manastone, dunno what people are doing to level
> : Wizards, Clerics and Druids :-) so it's not an option.
>
> Every high level SK or paladin NEEDS a mith 2her to compete.
Which is, of itself an untterly stupid situation. It is also true.
> : Lessee, its got more hit points and, well, the mobs prefer the PC as a
> : target so it doesn't really matter.
>
> It does if what you're fighting uses AE attacks. I think the main
> point of the paladin is to take damage though. Since the game
> first started that ability has become less important to the playing
> public so I guess by extension the paladin (and SK) have become
> less worthwhile (mainly those two because they don't have dual
> wield).
Well it has *never* been that important. The difference is that now the
masses of players are realising it.
However, the SK and Paladin would *not* be in their current position in the
first place if it hadn't been for the FUCKING MORONS at Verant who "forgot"
to add *any* 1h Shadowknight or Paladin weapons with 2h Stats other than the
Crapbane.
> : At leat SKs can do *some* mana damage to the mob.
>
> Oh yay. I think the paladin's stun, root and LoH are arguably
> much more useful than anything an SK can do (except maybe the
> darkness line they get even though they're resisted a lot).
LoH and HT are irrelevant - 72 minute hold spells aren't worth considering
in general combat.
I wouldn't agree. The Shadowknight can do mana damage to the mob. Sure it
isn't much, but they can damage the mob with an opening DoT which will help
them take it down (doesn't the level 30 SK DoT do about 150 damage? Thats
pretty sweet at that level). They can also add another 100 damage with
their pet (so what if it dies in a couple of hits - its *cheap* to cast and
the SK should *always* be the one getting hit). *REMEMBER*, in Beta Necros
made level *50* with the level 29 pet - thats what the SK gets at 49! They
also have Feign.
The Paladin has *one* use of mana when soloing - they can Root the mob, then
heal themselves. Now until 39, this is a *very* dodgy process. Just the
*first* root breaking early means you probably wont win. If two roots break
early you may as well run to the zone because you have taken too much damage
during the Root/Heal process.
Don't gimme shite about Stun. Sure its nice against a caster, or when you
play with a good Rogue. But in combat it removes *two* attack cycles from
the Paladin and gives a *less than* one second stun with a 8 second hold.
> : Rogues have twice the output and only lose something in the region of
25% on
> : defence. Even *before* you take into account that output is *so* much
more
> : important than defence, the Rogue wins.
>
> Quite possibly true. It does have some caveats however.
> [...]
>
> Levelling up I found this to be the main problem: rogues, due to
> backstab and good damage output (mainly due to their higher dual
> wield level caps earlier on) they'd just get hit too much and
> it'd be near impossible to taunt the monsters off.
>
> Rogues probably are rewarding at high level but its a long hard
> road. I certainly only know of 3 45+ rogues on my server (Fennin
> Ro).
There are a few more on Tarew Marr, most of the L50 Rogues I know are
exceptionally good. They are *so* much better (as a class) in the hands of
a competent player than a Paladin, its just sick. The Paladin (and SK), and
this is the thing I don't understand, are by far the *weakest* classes in
the game (at least the Wizard gets teleports).
Paladins and SKs can't cause damage, don't have useful spells. In Everquest
thats pretty much all their is - doing melée damage and casting good spells.
Neither class has a useful ability in that situ.
I guess the early Paladins, they are a common class at 50, just like to keep
quiet and not mention their classes failings because they know that should
this become common knowledge no-one would group with them (I certainly would
no longer choose a Paladin's ability to be a self-healign puller over the
damage of a Rogue or the feign of a Monk or SK).
Mason Barge
Mage was holding a stein when summoning, so I turned on reporting for others'
damage and just watched for a while. The pet showed double daggers, whatever
that means (i.e. I don't know every weapon that might cause this appearance,
but it was most likely two summoned daggers).
Mage pet was hitting for about double 32 max (actually 32-30 was the best I
saw) with an occasional 12 for third attack. Paladin was hitting for about
double 50 max.
I didn't get a message for pet spell output (water pet throwing the ice spell)
but it allegedly maxes at double melee max. Pet did not melee while casting,
so I doubt the spell was much different from melee, although I didn't see any
complete resist messages on the pet's spells.
This business about paladin vs. mage pet melee output is total horseshit. Not
to disparage mage damage output, as the pally was damage shielded and I assume
the burn message on the mobs was about 15-16 additional per round. Mage was
also meleeing with staff of writing and got an occasional proc, somewhat less
than once per mob as far as I could tell.
But I digress. Undoubtedly a mage's total damage output does, and was intended
to, outstrip a paladin's at similar level. But the melee output of the pet is
not in the same league.
Alasdair Allan
> This business about paladin vs. mage pet melee output is total horseshit.
Not
> to disparage mage damage output, as the pally was damage shielded and I
assume
> the burn message on the mobs was about 15-16 additional per round. Mage
was
> also meleeing with staff of writing and got an occasional proc, somewhat
less
> than once per mob as far as I could tell.
Mason, look, this is a pretty simple fucking concept. LOOKING AT MAXIMUM
DAMAGE IS WHAT LED MORONS LIKE YOU TO THINK STRENGTH WAS IMPORTANT FOR 12
MONTHS!
Looking at Max damage is a fucking huge error.
A level 36 Paladin with Ghoulbane will hit, most of the time, for 33. This
is their Magic Number ((damage*2)+((level-25)/3)). Their average damage
output is 80% of Magic Number.
Now pets, IME, hit their *max* damage as their Magic Number. So assuming
the pet also hits 80% of Magic Number as their average damage output (a good
estimate in my opinion), they are identical to a Paladin (remember this is a
pet which is 6 to 8 levels *lower* than the Paladin).
The mage's summoning *alone* equals the damage output of the Paladin. The
Paladin is pathetic (ok, this was lower Guk so the Ghoulbane proc is a
useful help - but one dungeon does not make a class!)
Mason Barge
>A level 36 Paladin with Ghoulbane will hit, most of the time, for 33. This
>is their Magic Number ((damage*2)+((level-25)/3)). Their average damage
>output is 80% of Magic Number.
>
>Now pets, IME, hit their *max* damage as their Magic Number. So assuming
>the pet also hits 80% of Magic Number as their average damage output (a good
>estimate in my opinion), they are identical to a Paladin (remember this is a
>pet which is 6 to 8 levels *lower* than the Paladin).
>
>The mage's summoning *alone* equals the damage output of the Paladin.
I don't give a flying fuck about your theories. They are not just wrong, they
are total horseshit. I sat there and watched a mage and paladin at exactly the
same level fighting the exact same mobs. There was no comparison in the damage
done by the pet and the pally. Pally was roughly 60% higher.
You understand? Pet hit for 20, Pally hit for 30; pet hit for 3, pally hit
for 12; pet double hit for 32-30, pally double hit for 48-44. It was so
blatantly lopsided that there was no need to log and average it, which is what
I was thinking about doing.
I am going to do my best to find a 49 mage and 47 paladin who will be willing
to engage in a paladin-v-pet duel. I have a feeling that the original post in
this thread was completely bogus and intend to run it down. If I can arrange
it and the pet should win, I will truthfully report the result and eat some
crow.
Hippie Ramone
: Mage pet was hitting for about double 32 max (actually 32-30 was the best I
: saw) with an occasional 12 for third attack. Paladin was hitting for about
: double 50 max.
Ok, L34 pet, these pets were never able to outdmg a melee type,
the L49 pets could, maybe, get quad 56 dmg.
: This business about paladin vs. mage pet melee output is total horseshit. Not
: to disparage mage damage output, as the pally was damage shielded and I assume
: the burn message on the mobs was about 15-16 additional per round. Mage was
: also meleeing with staff of writing and got an occasional proc, somewhat less
: than once per mob as far as I could tell.
AT L34.
: to, outstrip a paladin's at similar level. But the melee output of the pet is
: not in the same league.
AT the L34 pet
K
David Schrank
mages. Our major problem is the pets take half the exp. We tried out damaging
them but wasent worth the down time. Easier to debuff the mobs/buff the pets.
Mage will fireshield and do her 800 burn when fom. Almost no down time. Their
pet seems compriable to level 50 hybrid thats not casting.
Alasdair Allan wrote:
> Mason Barge <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote
> > This business about paladin vs. mage pet melee output is total horseshit.
> Not
> > to disparage mage damage output, as the pally was damage shielded and I
> assume
> > the burn message on the mobs was about 15-16 additional per round. Mage
> was
> > also meleeing with staff of writing and got an occasional proc, somewhat
> less
> > than once per mob as far as I could tell.
>
> Mason, look, this is a pretty simple fucking concept. LOOKING AT MAXIMUM
> DAMAGE IS WHAT LED MORONS LIKE YOU TO THINK STRENGTH WAS IMPORTANT FOR 12
> MONTHS!
>
> Looking at Max damage is a fucking huge error.
>
> A level 36 Paladin with Ghoulbane will hit, most of the time, for 33. This
> is their Magic Number ((damage*2)+((level-25)/3)). Their average damage
> output is 80% of Magic Number.
>
> Now pets, IME, hit their *max* damage as their Magic Number. So assuming
> the pet also hits 80% of Magic Number as their average damage output (a good
> estimate in my opinion), they are identical to a Paladin (remember this is a
> pet which is 6 to 8 levels *lower* than the Paladin).
>
> The mage's summoning *alone* equals the damage output of the Paladin. The
> Paladin is pathetic (ok, this was lower Guk so the Ghoulbane proc is a
> useful help - but one dungeon does not make a class!)
Alasdair Allan
> At level 16 I hated my mage. Lately I have been playing with a few level
49-50
> mages. Our major problem is the pets take half the exp. We tried out
damaging
> them but wasent worth the down time. Easier to debuff the mobs/buff the
pets.
> Mage will fireshield and do her 800 burn when fom. Almost no down time.
Their
> pet seems compriable to level 50 hybrid thats not casting.
Hence, you just group with a second Mage/Necro. That way you get
*identical* experience per kill (actually 2.5% more with the bonus) and
kill twice as fast!
Sam Schlansky
<01bf7420$c3e05e20$cf81dec2@x-static>:
>David Schrank <sch...@cisco.com> wrote
>> At level 16 I hated my mage. Lately I have been playing with a
>> few level 49-50
>> mages. Our major problem is the pets take half the exp. We tried
>> out damaging
>> them but wasent worth the down time. Easier to debuff the
>> mobs/buff the pets. Mage will fireshield and do her 800 burn when fom.
>> Almost no down time.
>> Their pet seems compriable to level 50 hybrid thats not casting.
>
>Hence, you just group with a second Mage/Necro. That way you get
>*identical* experience per kill (actually 2.5% more with the
>bonus) and kill twice as fast!
If *either* pet does the majority of the damage, all PC's will get half the
experience plus the grouping bonus.
For example, on a hypothetical level 30 mob with 2000 HP, which normally gives
67500 XP, the grouping bonus is 1350XP for a two person group. (data taken from
a ShowEQ user on casters realm)...
---Case 1---
Pet 1 does 600 damage.
Pet 2 does 400 damage.
Magician nukes for 450 damage.
Magician nukes for 400 damage.
Damage shields do 300 damage.
Both magicians get 17212 XP.
---Case 2---
Pet 1 does 600 damage.
Pet 2 does 400 damage.
Magician 1 nukes for 900 damage.
Magician 2 doesn't nuke.
Damage shields do 100 damage.
Both magicians get 34425 XP.
Group aggregate damage is *not* in, as you can see from the above examples. All
that matters is WITHIN THE GROUP, who does the most damage-- if it's a pet, you
lose half the XP.
Pets *do* suck XP in a group. Pets *do* suck xp when soloing. However in *both*
cases, if you outnuke your pet you (or your group) will get FULL xp. Hence if
played correctly there is zero (ZERO) penalty to using a pet in either grouping
OR soloing.
If you're forced to let your pet do over 50% of the damage while soloing (a
necromancer fear pet kiting, for example) think to yourself-- do you kill mobs
twice as fast using this tactic? It takes much less mana and presents less
risk, but does it take HALF as much mana and present HALF the risk? That's a
question you'll have to answer for yourself.
Luckily both shamen and magicians can easily nuke and outdamage their pets. A
necromancer really doesn't have that option. Until level 44, they have to stack
DoTs.
Mason Barge
let me give an example:
Pet 1 does 800 dmg
Pet 2 does 800 dmg
Caster 1 does 900 dmg
Caster 2 does 0 damage
Fireshields do 300 dmg
Am I correct that under this theoretical situation -- where pet aggregate
damage is higher than DD damage, but highest individual damage is DD -- your
system shows that the pets would get 0 xp?
Adar
Mason Barge <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> Sam - I'm not 100% clear on what you're saying. As I understand this --
well,
> let me give an example:
>
> Pet 1 does 800 dmg
> Pet 2 does 800 dmg
> Caster 1 does 900 dmg
> Caster 2 does 0 damage
> Fireshields do 300 dmg
>
> Am I correct that under this theoretical situation -- where pet aggregate
> damage is higher than DD damage, but highest individual damage is DD --
your
> system shows that the pets would get 0 xp?
>
Yep. The caveat is that we're not quite sure whether fireshields count as
the caster's damage (if cast during battle) or as 'none'.
Brudo (E'ci)
Loredaeron (E'ci)
Mason Barge
>Yep. The caveat is that we're not quite sure whether fireshields count as
>the caster's damage (if cast during battle) or as 'none'.
I have heard a ShowEQ tester state that fireshield damage is counted as "none"
for damage attribution. I am certain, however, that it counts as an attack for
purposes of faction.
Sam Schlansky
>Sam - I'm not 100% clear on what you're saying. As I understand
>this -- well, let me give an example:
>
>Pet 1 does 800 dmg
>Pet 2 does 800 dmg
>Caster 1 does 900 dmg
>Caster 2 does 0 damage
>Fireshields do 300 dmg
>
>Am I correct that under this theoretical situation -- where pet
>aggregate damage is higher than DD damage, but highest individual
>damage is DD -- your system shows that the pets would get 0 xp?
That's correct. In that situation the pets would take 0xp from the group.
Sam Schlansky
<881fia$nud$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>:
>Mason Barge <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20000211093149...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
>> Sam - I'm not 100% clear on what you're saying. As I understand
>> this -- well, let me give an example:
>>
>> Pet 1 does 800 dmg
>> Pet 2 does 800 dmg
>> Caster 1 does 900 dmg
>> Caster 2 does 0 damage
>> Fireshields do 300 dmg
>>
>> Am I correct that under this theoretical situation -- where pet
>> aggregate damage is higher than DD damage, but highest
>> individual damage is DD -- your
>> system shows that the pets would get 0 xp?
>
>Yep. The caveat is that we're not quite sure whether fireshields
>count as the caster's damage (if cast during battle) or as 'none'.
No, we're sure. Damageshields count as "none". I just threw them in
to confuse people. :)
Billy Shields
: Mason Barge <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
: news:20000211093149...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
:> Sam - I'm not 100% clear on what you're saying. As I understand this --
: well,
:> let me give an example:
:>
:> Pet 1 does 800 dmg
:> Pet 2 does 800 dmg
:> Caster 1 does 900 dmg
:> Caster 2 does 0 damage
:> Fireshields do 300 dmg
:>
:> Am I correct that under this theoretical situation -- where pet aggregate
:> damage is higher than DD damage, but highest individual damage is DD --
: your
:> system shows that the pets would get 0 xp?
:>
: Yep. The caveat is that we're not quite sure whether fireshields count as
: the caster's damage (if cast during battle) or as 'none'.
They don't count at all.
Alasdair Allan
> ad...@spamaway.mindspring.com (Adar) wrote
> >Yep. The caveat is that we're not quite sure whether fireshields
> >count as the caster's damage (if cast during battle) or as 'none'.
>
> to confuse people. :)
This gets fucking worse.
OK, this means that as a Paladin, with low damage grouped with a mage and
druid I have to ensure the mage summons a lower level pet or never buffs it
*and* that its a low damage earth pet, even in places where the Root may be
a problem, because otherwise there is no way I'm outdamaging it.
I wondered why it took nearly 10 hours of non-stop fighting to get through
level 38 on Saturday. I had sort of guessed that the pet was going to take
xp if it was the single highest damager (as opposed to outdamaging the rest
of the group combined).
Ok that is fucked up.
Sergey Dashevskiy
static.demon.co.uk says...
> This gets fucking worse.
>
> OK, this means that as a Paladin, with low damage grouped with a mage and
> druid I have to ensure the mage summons a lower level pet or never buffs it
> *and* that its a low damage earth pet, even in places where the Root may be
> a problem, because otherwise there is no way I'm outdamaging it.
>
> I wondered why it took nearly 10 hours of non-stop fighting to get through
> level 38 on Saturday. I had sort of guessed that the pet was going to take
> xp if it was the single highest damager (as opposed to outdamaging the rest
> of the group combined).
>
> Ok that is fucked up.
I'm not quite sure it's quite about outdamaging the pet (or maybe I'm
just talking about a totally different thing, and then I'll shut up). It
somehow also factors in the number of hits.
As an example: yesterday I decided to max out my piercing skill and I
didn't have enough time to actually do that while I get experience. So I
got 2 FS daggers, went to Sol B and asked a group there if I could
practince on their targets. They pull one GK, I start my haste song (+
20% attack speed) and start stabbing the said kobold. Me being a lowly
level 36 (vs a full group of 35-42 with pets) I was taking about every
other kill until I figured out what's wrong, apologised and left. They
were a bit surprised at that as well, as they knew there was no chance
in hell I could possibly even come close to outdamaging them
Adar
Sergey Dashevskiy <xi...@tcimet.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1311ed253...@news.msu.edu...
>
> I'm not quite sure it's quite about outdamaging the pet (or maybe I'm
> just talking about a totally different thing, and then I'll shut up). It
> somehow also factors in the number of hits.
> As an example: yesterday I decided to max out my piercing skill and I
> didn't have enough time to actually do that while I get experience. So I
> got 2 FS daggers, went to Sol B and asked a group there if I could
> practince on their targets. They pull one GK, I start my haste song (+
> 20% attack speed) and start stabbing the said kobold. Me being a lowly
> level 36 (vs a full group of 35-42 with pets) I was taking about every
> other kill until I figured out what's wrong, apologised and left. They
> were a bit surprised at that as well, as they knew there was no chance
> in hell I could possibly even come close to outdamaging them
That's not the number of hits; that's the hate list overflow bug rearing its
ugly head. Since there were more than 8 damage sources, you kept blowing
each other off the list, so your rapid-fire 10 damage pierces were actually
the biggest damage dealers on it.
ArkAngel
'XXXcoat'
> resistance does not decrease the effectiveness of ours.
>
>
>
Resistance has nothing to do with damage done by damage shields because they
get no resist as it is cast on you not the mob.
My 2 cents ...