by Tugarol » Sat May 03, 2008 11:42 am
tord, when you begin your post with "There was a lot wrong with what you posted, Tugarol." and then proceed to tell me where I was wrong in your opinion, and then say:
"You said the best groups for you have a Druid, a Cleric and a Shaman. What in the world do you need TWO other priests in your group for? One, perhaps, if you're doing content that's so brutal you can't handle main healing. But two? That seems like a waste to me. I much prefer a group packed with as many melee DPS as I can get."
So the way you posted it I assumed you were telling me where you thought I was wrong since you started the post with that and everything else looked like a sub-catagory of wrongness to me. You damn sure didnt say "but I agree with this part". Now you try and act like you're all innocent and oh gee, no where were you telling me I was wrong about my group? Like why I would need 2 other priests and how that seems a waste and etc. So you can see how I might have got the wrong impression. One of the many faults of trying to express something in this type of format. Without tone and body language much is mistook or misunderstood. Especially when it begins with "youre wrong" and feels like a personal attack.
So whatever. Maybe I took it the wrong way, maybe you're just a grump? Who cares. Again let me apologize for sharing that with you in my attempt to express my dislike for the way our roles as shamans are changing. In my groups like that with 3 priests there are many benefits and what seems like a waste? to you is a solid exp group with lots of "shock absorbtion", lots of "afkability" to me, and to be honest our dps is just fine. Take a druid out of his healing role and see how happy he is doing dps.
Is it realistic to expect every shaman to want to play their character exactly the same way? no. Is there any one "perfect" way to play a shaman? I dont think so but I play to have fun and so might be less concerned about being "perfect". Any one "right" combination of characters that is always the perfect group for every situation? Not that Ive figured out.
Whats muddled about it if you really dont know?, ina nutshell, is that we used to do stuff to the mobs, now we do stuff to the players. While the end result may be the same the gaming experience is not. At least for me its not. And again I say I am not happy being a cleric or being a primary healer. What part of that dont you understand?
I have never played my shaman as a healer and though I do heal maybe a lot sometimes, Its not why I made my shaman. Its not what I want to do when I pay to play. Obviously people here are very passionate about shamans and thats a great thing.
The whole "every priest class the same" thing will never happen fully just like the "every tank class the same" wont either. Thats a generic version of some other game not eq. IN MY OPINION!
Maybe you have been the healer on your shaman since you started. Grats you.
Maybe I have not. Grats me.
Sure I am often the group healer on a raid or occasionally the primary healer in an exp group. But you guys (finori, waring) both seem to say its because there arent enough clerics or druids. You say put the clerics on the main tanks, but then turn around and say a shaman should be able to heal like a cleric? Healing a group that isnt getting hit on a raid except by the ae's is quite a bit different from being a primary healer. So lets try not to confuse things further by trying to equate being a group healer on a raid with being a primary healer. Sure we can heal a group that could probably take care of itself with potions on a raid, so what? Is that supposed to make me happy my slow sucks and my spells are all like 10+ levels old and im demoted to this new role as a group or backup healer? And thats what it feels like to me. A demotion. I have tried to explain it as best I can. Its more of a feeling than an actual number or fact. An intangible that says to me this is not the shaman I created, or wanted.
Let me ask you this: Take a moment and think about it please. Call it curiosity.
You are the raid leader, raiding something your guild has done but has also lost to several times. A mob not yet on farm status but not a first encounter either. The raid is basically full.
IF your guild had so many clerics on that there was one per group on a raid. AND IF your guild had so many druids on that there was one per group also on the raid, how many shamans would you need per group on same raid?
1, 1per group, or somewhere more than one but less than 1 per group?
Would you make some clerics and druids go home or switch to dps alts to make room for shamans to heal?
Would you add a shaman to every group or every other group?
Would you like to be the only shaman on this raid?
I know a lot has changed for us as a class and maybe im just expressing my dissatisfaction with it. I am not trying to start arguments or get into a cock waving contest. But I do not like the way things are going for the shaman class. And I do not think better heals is a solution to crappier slows for me. Might as well give me dual wield.
tug