SoE's treatment of Zerkers

[Choppin]

Out of sympathy for a broken class (and to show soe that the community cares more than they do) I wouldnt mind putting berserkers into the top 10 of beastlord issues, like: 10) Fix Berserkers !

just my opinion, I played a beastlord pretty much from the start so I ve got a slight idea how they feel bout missing AAs and be looked down upon,

really hope they get a fix and may become as successful as beastlords in the long run (I see ALOT of beastlords nowadays)

good luck to em and /sigh at sony

my 2cent

[Ukator Iceblood]

Exactly my point Choppin
/salute

[Tastian]

Like I said though at this point it's just a matter of time.  They are waiting on code.  They've got the attention of the right people, most of their AAs are done and waiting on more code, etc.  It's just a matter of time and then making sure what gets fixed and goes in works properly hehe.  It's definitely an annoying thing to go through though.  8(

[mrowrr]

This is probably because I don't have GoD and know nothing about Berserkers, but if I was a group leader, I'd choose just about any class over a berserker when lining up a group.

I remember when it went like this.

This is probably because I don't have Luclin and know nothing about Beastlords, but if I was a group leader, I'd choose just about any class over a Beastlord when lining up a group.

[Dysz]

I know of one or two high end berserkers on my server (one being in my guild) and frankly, they have nothing to add to the high end game.  Warriors can tank, monks can pull, rogues can drag/scout and add crazy dps, then all the casters are either pure DPS or have some sort of buff role (even necros have DMF).  What do the berserkers have?  The ability to snare or stun?  That is one of the reasons I think they are underused and hopefully, as tastian says, its just a matter of implementing the code, before people start realizing their usefulness (I don't, heh).

[Bengali]

This is probably because I don't have GoD and know nothing about Berserkers, but if I was a group leader, I'd choose just about any class over a berserker when lining up a group.

I remember when it went like this.

This is probably because I don't have Luclin and know nothing about Beastlords, but if I was a group leader, I'd choose just about any class over a Beastlord when lining up a group.

I remember that all too well, Mrowrr.   That's why it's really unnerving to hear these same sentiments posted *by* beastlords, when it really wasn't all that long ago that we were in the same boat (and some people will still say we don't add anything that's really needed at the high end).

[Alerka]

I've been grouped with berserksers (under lvl 60) and they seem to add nothing to a group. I have nothing against the players at all.

As far as beast adding nothing to the end game, that may be true, but it sure isnt true for middle game (in the 50's). We were in dulak last night in a full group. Me (a bst), a rogue, a druid, a ranger, a warrior, a wizard.

The experience kinda sucked so me and the rogue went to duo (we are friends and duo often). We were tearing the exp up! The group we were in had to leave because they couldnt handle the mobs without us.

Like I said, dunno about endgame with a bst, but in the 50's, grouped with a rogue we are like chainsaws tearing through wood. We are both pretty twinked, and I don't think I've ever seen faster exp or mobs die faster from a duo than from a rogue and beasty together.

[Bengali]

I think you're sorta missing my point, which is only that there was a time when beastlords added nothing to the high-end, added nothing to the mid-game, and where other classes were like, "why did they create this class in the first place -- they should just delete it now because they don't have a role."

Make no mistake, I'm in complete agreement with the people who say that berserkers need some work (and they need it PRONTO) to give them something that makes them more desirable to groups and raids.  And I also agree that SOE should have *learned* from its experience with beastlords and not released them  unfinished.  I only disagree with the premise that the whole idea of berserkers is a waste of time simply because they don't have some class-defining role at the moment.  Even if they never have one (we don't, really) that doesn't mean they won't ever have something cool to contribute to the game.

Also, there is a difference between not adding something unique and special all the time and not adding anything at all.   It's not as if having a berserker in your group adds zero value to any group.   It's that currently they don't do anything that some other class can't also do.

And the real question is, so what?  I'm as big an advocate of beastlords as anyone but we don't do anything that some other class doesn't also do either.   That doesn't mean that a class can't be worthwhile, or that it can't be fun, or that it will always be lacking in certain areas.

One day classes will be calling for zerker nerfs and posting inaccurate data about them too. :)

[TerjynPovar]

Isn't it true that Berserkers were supposed to go in with that "Opening" thing that people in beta hated so badly that they scrapped the whole idea?  I thought that was why Berserkers seem so incomplete...their whole point of existence got scrapped pre-release of GoD.

[Mhordel]

Berserker should have been a Bard/Warrior Hybred:

Warsongs, Warcries, AA Skills unique enough and flashy enough to stand on their own merit (our Paragon does that for us).

Melee ?  EQ Melee system really isnt that hot, doing much with it is like putting a pig in a skirt and taking it to the prom.  To be a COOL system, put in hit-locations, scars, realistic effects of fatigue, crippling blows, and revamp healing to reflect it... Having a Warrior blasted by Dragon Fire, then crippled by savage bites and slashes to near death, being healed up as good as the day he left the Guildhall, over and over, is stupid.

Anyways, I am getting off Topic, yes, Berserkers are screwed up hard, and I think they need fixing.

[Alerka]

Having a Warrior blasted by Dragon Fire, then crippled by savage bites and slashes to near death, being healed up as good as the day he left the Guildhall, over and over, is stupid.

Hehe. Wouldn't every 65 char be walking around looking like some sort of blob with broken/missing limbs, bruised flesh and lacerations? Not to mention the diseased boils oozing and spurting.

I didn't get luclin until almost a year and a half of it being out. Were beastlords broken to the point that they sucked even under level 50?

[Tastian]

lol it's been so long that it's hit the point where I don't remember exactly how it was.  Our warders and proc spells got completely changed.  Originally our pet was a "buff" and took up a slot and we summoned them with a skill, the pet zoned with us, but defaulted to being much lower level until buffed back up.  The pets could be CH'd by using the level buff and this lead to a few problems.  There was no SD or SV line of spells at the time.  Beastlords were definitely in bad shape early on.  Even at 60 originally we had problems because our 60 spells of sha's/savagery basically didn't exist.  I remember it was a good 6? months or so after luclin went live before I saw my first copy of sha's off emp as I recall.  It's just been so long though that I'm not sure.

[Bengali]

I didn't get luclin until almost a year and a half of it being out. Were beastlords broken to the point that they sucked even under level 50?

They were broken in the way that berserkers are, which is that there was no reason to say, "hey, let's get a beastlord over (insert class here)".   Pre-50, beastlords use a level 5 shaman slow, so people were like "why would I get a beastlord over a shaman or chanter?".  Our pets didn't do anything special (and they were much gimpier), so people were like, "why would I get a beastlord instead of a mage?"  Our buffs were low level shaman buffs, so again people thought that there was "no point" to adding a beastlord.   There was no pre-50 version of Spirtual Purity; there were no pre-50 versions of Spiritual Strength; there weren't even any pre-50 bst-only nukes -- instead beastlords shared Spirit Strike with shamans and fizzled the heck out of it because it has a 25 fizzle adjustment.   Sure we could add dps, but so could rogues, rangers, monks and warriors.   We could tank if we were twinked, but so could all of those other classes, and there wasn't the same level of twink gear available.  Our proc buffs were all the same except for resist type, and they lasted for like 15 mins or something so we constantly had to rebuff.

The thing is, many of those things are still true.  We still use a level 5 shaman slow.  We still have gimpy shaman buffs.  We still don't tank any better than another melee in the same gear.  Our dps still depends on the right setup, and there are several other classes who can do more damage at that level.

Yet somehow, people don't think that beastlords add nothing to groups anymore.  Fundamentally nothing has changed since then, and there isn't really anything that we do that some other class can't also do.  The difference is that people are less focused on trying to find out what we do better than everyone else and instead just look at some of the things we can do.   Once people start to do that with berserkers (and when SOE implements a few needed tweaks), they'll be off to the races.

[Bengali]

lThere was no SD or SV line of spells at the time.

Well there wasn't a "line" of spells but we did get spiritual purity at 59 and spiritual strength at 60.

[Tastian]

Yeah there wasn't anything before 59 for purity and wasn't spiritual str originally a mini-focus?  I keep seeing the .dat for it in my head, but it's just been so long I'm not sure.  I seem to remember it being changed over to the hp/atk buff it is now and the line going in, but I'm just not sure like I said.