Healers are fine. Perfectly fine. In fact probably a little more than fine.

[FalcoLombardi]

Throw a commando healer in there, and see if he can survive 1vs1, non warhero gear. people never said scoundrel healer was bad(best healer atm), it is sage and commando that got hit with the no longer useful stick.

 

I think Commando healers are very good. And playing against them and Operative healers is annoying. It's hard to keep them interrupted. Sorcerer's however, I can interrupt all day and kill them by myself eventually

[UGLYMRJ]

Healers are more than fine and make the difference in WZ's... with the way most of the WZ's are set up, a group with 4-5 healers can be epic if they are aware and play the objectives properly.

 

Most of the time nodes and doors are capped when they are not properly guarded or when the other team is mostly dead and in spawn waiting to be released. Now I've had this happen a few times going up against teams with 4-5 healers and it's near impossible to take nodes and doors if they are a capable team that plays objectives.

 

Almost no one dies... most teams will not have enough DPS to kill through 4-5 healers cross healing and if no one is dying it makes capping that much more difficult. Of course they weren't killing us either since they didn't have a lot of DPS but it basically turns into a big game of cat n mouse. Just trying to out smart each other.

 

If you focus fire one healer the rest focus heals on your target... if you split up they still cross heal and it's really damn effective.

 

My point being healers are def more than fine as is... I'm actually glad most people are DPS focused because the last thing I want to see is more healers on opposing teams. Together they can be beastly.

[Khoraji]

Healers are more than fine and make the difference in WZ's... with the way most of the WZ's are set up, a group with 4-5 healers can be epic if they are aware and play the objectives properly.

 

Most of the time nodes and doors are capped when they are not properly guarded or when the other team is mostly dead and in spawn waiting to be released. Now I've had this happen a few times going up against teams with 4-5 healers and it's near impossible to take nodes and doors if they are a capable team that plays objectives.

 

Almost no one dies... most teams will not have enough DPS to kill through 4-5 healers cross healing and if no one is dying it makes capping that much more difficult. Of course they weren't killing us either since they didn't have a lot of DPS but it basically turns into a big game of cat n mouse. Just trying to out smart each other.

 

If you focus fire one healer the rest focus heals on your target... if you split up they still cross heal and it's really damn effective.

 

My point being healers are def more than fine as is... I'm actually glad most people are DPS focused because the last thing I want to see is more healers on opposing teams. Together they can be beastly.

 

I agree that healers are fine. But 4-5 of them is overkill. Even 3 can be too much sometimes. Maybe it is just the terrible DPS pugs I play with, but not having enough DPS gets super annoying. I usually run with an ops healer (merc healer myself) and no one really dies unless 4-5 people are focus-firing. An extra healer really wouldn't make that much of a difference, but a good DPS can make a huge difference.

 

Its all situational, and having 8-man groups will solve alot of the problems that pugs cause, then maybe 3-4 healers could work. But as it stands now, its just overkill.

[UGLYMRJ]

I agree that healers are fine. But 4-5 of them is overkill. Even 3 can be too much sometimes. Maybe it is just the terrible DPS pugs I play with, but not having enough DPS gets super annoying. I usually run with an ops healer (merc healer myself) and no one really dies unless 4-5 people are focus-firing. An extra healer really wouldn't make that much of a difference, but a good DPS can make a huge difference.

 

Its all situational, and having 8-man groups will solve alot of the problems that pugs cause, then maybe 3-4 healers could work. But as it stands now, its just overkill.

 

Too much of anything can either be really good... or really bad. It depends on the opposing teams set up. That's why if possible running a balanced team is almost always going to be the best bet and makes me look forward to 8man groups and ranked WZ's.

[Astarica]

The high heal setup only works in a vacuum. Let's say for the sake of simplicity that 3 DPS can kill a guarded healer. In theory you should run 4 healer + 4 DPS (bring an extra DPS to hedge against teams with more than one healer) and you should always win against any team with less healers than you, right?

 

But this ignores that certain classes are extremely good at DPS denial. If a melee has a Marauder or Tankasin on them, they're usually not going anywhere. In this case your DPS done to an enemy healer can very well be 0. So now let's say you go up against 1 healer + 7 DPS (1 of them is Tankasin for Guard). 2 of their DPS use DPS denial abilities on your 2 DPS, and the Tankasin just guards and stands still. They still have 4 DPS to work with against your 4 healers. We started out assuming 3 DPS can kill a guarded healer, so 4 DPS at least have a chance fo killing some of those 4 healers. On the other hand, your 2 DPS has NO chance of killing their only healer. Given a sufficeintly long fight, you will actually lose because you can never kill their healer as long as their DPS keeps up with DPS denial tactics (which isn't hard), but eventually their 4 DPS could overcome your 4 healers.

[Humankeg]

Healers in BM+ gear (especially medics/scoundrels) are very well balanced and very strong.

 

The problem in lvl 50 pvp is the same as in low level pvp. Healers not in top end gear are wrecked by dps. A badly geared healer would be flattened by a badly geared dps. An average geared healer is beat by an average geared dps.

 

Healers rely more on expertise than other classes to be able to succeed and it takes a LONG time to get the approriate levels of gear to be able to survive one or more dps.

[ProfessorWalsh]

Really once the servers are all in the Standard to High category they (BioWare) needs to limit people by role in the non-rated Warzones.

 

In your rated Warzones you can build whatever team you want. In the non-rated though there should be restrictions in place on classes. This would serve to also help ensure that there is an even distribution. No team in the "normal" Warzones should have more than 2 healers.

 

Once you get to 3 healers, or god forbid 4, then that team either wins outright or it becomes a very long war that never ends and is frustrating.

[Helig]

A pretty unnecessary, and rather blunt limitation you're proposing, to be honest. My premade (word used loosely - it was more like a guild pug, but with voice comm) won plenty of matches with 0 healers against teams with 3 or more, just by using basic tactics. Edited June 15, 2012 by Helig

[Annex]

Just setup group finder for PvP.

 

Easy.

[Varicite]

Well, healers are perfectly balanced at the momenet. We are not OP or under powered. I'll agree with you on that point. There is a big learning curve, however, to healing. One can't just respec healing and hope to do a good job. Unfortunatly, Bioware doesn't give any incentive to be a healer, especially in pvp. Come on, 1-3 MvP votes which basically means 1-3 extra wz commendations? Thats so usful to getting War Hero....

 

I'm curious what makes it any harder to gear up a healer as opposed to, say, a DPS or tank in the current game?

 

I don't play healers, which is why I ask.

 

To my knowledge, they get the same rewards as everyone else, and no longer have any real difficulty in obtaining medals thanks to the new objectives medals and getting credit for kills from the people they heal.

 

Are you suggesting that you should get more than everyone else for being a healer? <.<

[AlyxDinas]

Love how you try to take everything I say out of context. It won't work though. I've already disputed all of your claims regardless of how you tried to twist them. Healers are fine. Period.

 

How long has this crusade been going on for you? Honestly, I tend to generally agree with you on this talking point, but it needs to slow down and the language should be tailored to be less empirically stated. Clearly, some people have some issue with the assessment. That alone necessitates that we not walk in and always act as though our own assessments are factual and that everyone else who doesn't see it is some sort of blind fool. If anything, it makes for a better discussion and certainly makes you seem more magnanimous. Which is direly needed in your posts.

 

As to the issue on hand, I do think that the state of things is generally okay but I think that Sage/Sorc's are in a rougher position now than before, in terms of PvP and even in terms of leveling as a healer compare to other ACs of the same role. Enough so that it warrants some examination. I have no issue with certain ACs having certain benefits to them that make them "better" than others in certain areas but it still needs to level out somehow (ie. Okay, this tank has mobility but their cooldowns are not as great as this tank). It really doesn't at the moment.

 

PS. People on our new server are recruiting for ranked WZ teams. Most are not taking sages or sorcs. That alone should tell you something.

Edited June 16, 2012 by AlyxDinas

[ProfessorWalsh]

PS. People on our new server are recruiting for ranked WZ teams. Most are not taking sages or sorcs. That alone should tell you something.

 

That they don't know what they are doing and don't see the value of Sorcerers or Sages?

[Helig]

That they don't know what they are doing and don't see the value of Sorcerers or Sages?

 

The balance had shifted. Right now, Sorcs and Sages lost their hybrid TK wave spec, which was comparable to Focus in terms of AoE burst threat. As healers, they also were "fixed" in 1.2, and they have to remain stationary, which isn't bad on its own, but the fact that they need to be babysat by a tank 24\7 to fully unfold (unlike Scoundrels and, to a lesser extent, Commandos) further limits their usefulness.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Helig

[AlyxDinas]

That they don't know what they are doing and don't see the value of Sorcerers or Sages?

 

Considering that these players are far better than you, I wouldn't say that. Here's a hint: your thoughts on the matter are not the final barometer here. There is a dynamic at play with healing classes right now which apparently leaves certain ACs seeming more desirable for highly competitive play. Whether or not *you* believe this is so is utterly meaningless in the grand picture since this sentiment is common enough that certain ACs are being excluded from competitive premades. Barring player ability that compensates for whatever perceived shortcomings in the AC. Good AoEs (the classes main strength) do not completely make up for weaknesses elsewhere, after all, unless the player themselves is competent. And as much as this might be about finding synergizing healers, I can tell you from coordination with some of these folks that is has not always been the case. Some groups are just not taking them at all.

 

The fact doesn't even need your pithy commenting on. The mere existence of this status quo undermines what you are saying so completely that you're obviously left with no real response. Because if you had one that actually addressed the problem, you wouldn't have bothered with such an impotent and utterly laughable form of deflection.

Edited June 17, 2012 by AlyxDinas

[AKfourtyseven]

 

PS. People on our new server are recruiting for ranked WZ teams. Most are not taking sages or sorcs. That alone should tell you something.

 

I saw a Sorc healer pump out 750k healing in a warzone today...

 

Sure an Op healer can hump a pillar, but nobody beats Sorc/Sage when it comes to AOE healing with a tank protecting them.

Edited June 17, 2012 by AKfourtyseven

[Superawesomerman]

People aren't asking for healing sorcs because there are a ton already.

[AlyxDinas]

Sure an Op healer can hump a pillar, but nobody beats Sorc/Sage when it comes to AOE healing with a tank protecting them.

 

Your counter example is a healer with pocket tank who is also a good player?

Edited June 17, 2012 by AlyxDinas

[AKfourtyseven]

Your counter example is a healer with pocket tank who is also a good player?

 

No, my counter is since i play tank anyway, a sorc healer is going to be more valuable to the team than an Op since both healers are getting protected either way, but the potential gains in healing for the rest of the team are greater when its tank + sorc/sage rather than tank + Op/Scoundrel.

 

So like i said, Ops may be good at kiting around and keeping themselves alive in a vacuum, but when it comes to keeping others alive? Id take a Sorc/Sage no problem. Either way, this is a rather silly debate, because under ideal circumstances you would have both in your team anyway, with the Op playing mobile healer.

Edited June 17, 2012 by AKfourtyseven

[LancelotOC]

It would seem to me that there are 8 advanced classes and 3 of them are healers. If you are facing a 3 healer team and feel this is too powerful well 3 out of 8 is what it's supposed to be. That not enough people play healers and that 3+ healers per warzone doesnt happen enough just shows that the classes are not as fun to play.

 

As a team game I strongly feel 3 healer 8man should win against teams without that many healers or with too many. Any thing else plays favortism to the other AC's. All arguments against this are inherantly self-centered. Everyone pays the same subscription fee, how can teams with too many DPS or tanks feel they should win against balanced teams?

Edited June 17, 2012 by LancelotOC

[AlyxDinas]

Either way, this is a rather silly debate, because under ideal circumstances you would have both in your team anyway, with the Op playing mobile healer.

 

Yet, this is the heart of the matter. All things being equal, people are making one choice over the other when limited. Indeed, I'd rather agree with you that the ideal circumstances makes the point moot but circumstances are not consistently ideal. And that's what makes the OP's statement of fact questionable.

[ProfessorWalsh]

It would seem to me that there are 8 advanced classes and 3 of them are healers. If you are facing a 3 healer team and feel this is too powerful well 3 out of 8 is what it's supposed to be. That not enough people play healers and that 3+ healers per warzone doesnt happen enough just shows that the classes are not as fun to play.

 

As a team game I strongly feel 3 healer 8man should win against teams without that many healers or with too many. Any thing else plays favortism to the other AC's. All arguments against this are inherantly self-centered. Everyone pays the same subscription fee, how can teams with too many DPS or tanks feel they should win against balanced teams?

 

...

 

Uhm.. No.

 

First of all... There are zero "healer classes" in this game. There are three classes that can choose between either being a DPS or a Healer. If we are going on possibilities as you did here then every single AC can be DPS.

 

In this game these are your options

 

1. All Jedi Sentinels are melee DPS.

2. All Gunslingers are ranged DPS.

3. All Jedi Guardians are either Melee DPS or Melee Tanks.

4. All Trooper Vanguards are either Ranged DPS or Ranged Tanks.

5. All Jedi Sages are either Ranged DPS or Healers.

6. All Scoundrels are either mid/close ranged DPS or Healers.

7. All Jedi Shadows are either Melee DPS or Melee Tanks.

8. All Trooper Commandos are either Ranged DPS or Healers.

 

So no, 3 out of 8 healers is not what it is supposed to be.

 

A "balanced" team consisting of one of each class should be:

 

A minimum of 1 Melee DPS, up to 4 Melee DPS (including scoundrel)

A minimum of 1 Ranged DPS, up to 4 Ranged DPS

A minimum of 0 Healers, up to 3 Healers

A minimum of 0 Tanks, up to 3 Tanks

 

Or are you saying that in your opinion all options of DPS should be ignored save for the Sentinel or Gunslinger?

Edited June 17, 2012 by ProfessorWalsh

[fungihoujo]

Love how you try to take everything I say out of context. It won't work though. I've already disputed all of your claims regardless of how you tried to twist them. Healers are fine. Period.

 

No, you have yet to actually answer things I say- instead you go onto tirades about how I never speak proof and am always asking for marauder nerfs- even when answering threads where I only present facts (which you naturally ignore when they do not support your vision), or how most of my posts aren't even asking for nerfs at all- but simply pointing out abilities, differences between classes, etc...

 

You call me twisting when I present an ability, what it does, and give what is the tooltip description. You present lies- like saying only one spec of marauder has a root- and only one at that. Upon which I point out every root in every spec and prove you wrong.

 

And, in the end- as I've said, you are someone who has never said positive things about healers, who has staunchly been a sentinel and staunchly said sentinels must be OP in order for the game to follow lore- since before the game was even out.

 

And you are someone who doesn't even play a healer- that's also a fact, not twisting at all.

 

So yes- I am saying that you, as someone who doesn't play a healer, doesn't like healers, and is massively biased towards your sentinel class (I like how you also play Shadow, yes, you know the UP classes well there)- has zero knowledge of healers, and absolutely nothing to back up your claim about healers.

 

I'm not even saying that healers aren't fine- all I'm saying is that you're the last person anyone should listen to on any matters of balance- especially matters that regard classes you don't play or want to play.

 

Even this thread- is nothing more than you stomping your feet, shouting 'HEALERS ARE FINE DEAL WITH IT' without having an ounce of supporting evidence, using 'I can't kill them so they're OP boo hoo' as your defense of what you're saying, and flip flopping on asking for healers to be nerfed- not because they should/shouldn't be nerfed, but because you want them to be nerfed but know full well if you actively ask for nerfs people might respond to you the same way as you've been responding to people who ask for marauder nerfs- and even for a hypocrite like you that would just be too obvious, so you avoid saying exactly what you want to say to save some semblance of face for the few people left here who don't see right through you.

Edited June 17, 2012 by fungihoujo

[Svarteryttaren]

Throw a commando healer in there, and see if he can survive 1vs1, non warhero gear. people never said scoundrel healer was bad(best healer atm), it is sage and commando that got hit with the no longer useful stick.

 

This.

Most classes that have to stand still to be effective are less visble to do anything constructive in PvP.

 

A commando/bh healer who either have to shoose to stand still and try and get away a heal through all those interupts Before he dies (if the opponent is half good anyway) OR run around and postpone death isnt fun to play with. Going dps is much more easier and fun since in any given scenario you can do something about it. Before 1.2 you could survive ( to much i agree, the nerf was needed to make pvp warzones more fluid).

A healer that leaves a visual trail of green laser that all enemies can see and only need to home in on need to be able to run and through heals, they can be weaker heals over time perhaps then those for PvE ops but there needs to be something more then just the big instant heal with long cd and the weak "give away" rapid shots for it to be fun.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Svarteryttaren

[AlyxDinas]

This is something of a tangent but...

 

All Trooper Vanguards are either Ranged DPS or Ranged Tanks.

 

Only in the sense that Guard has a range of 15 meters. As it stands, a Vanguard has the most possible options (offensively and in terms of defensive cooldowns) within thae 4m range. Calling it a "ranged tank" is a misnomer.

 

As to the topic on hand, I think it's becoming very clear that you've a fairly unique definition of "fine". Better than before? Perhaps. Is everything fine? I certainly wouldn't say so.

Edited June 17, 2012 by AlyxDinas

[Superawesomerman]

Some people think they are smarter than they really are, myself included