Forums » Pantheon Classes

Line of Sight for heal spells

    • 612 posts
    September 11, 2018 8:15 PM PDT

    One of the things I remember being a huge change when I moved from EQ1 to playing WoW was the fact that heals in WoW needed line of sight. In EQ1 you could heal your teammates without needing to worry about where they were, as long as you were within range. This meant healers could hide behind walls to avoid AoE damage but still cast their heals on their allies who were out in the fight. But when I switched to WoW, suddenly line of sight mattered and heals required this line of sight and a lot of healers needed to become more aware of their allies positions so they maintained line of sight.

    In a recent stream with TheHiveLeader playing cleric, MMO Dream Team, there is this moment where they encounter a glitch that causes a line of sight issue and TheHiveLeader is prevented from casting his heal due to this line of sight issue. Which brought to mind this question on Line of Sight for heals and the pro's and con's.

    I'm interested in hearing others opinions on this topic and if you like Line of Sight being required for heals or if you would like the old EQ1 way of no Line of Sight being needed.

    I think that if they do use Line of Sight, there could include some specific 'emergency' style heal spells that maybe aren't efficient or have a longer cooldown, that can ignore the Line of Sight rule, just in case you need to heal an ally that is taken out of line of sight. It may even be part of Boss event where players get summoned into a box or something and the raid needs to break them out, but while in the box they take damage, and healers need to use this 'non line of sight' spells to keep them alive until they get them out.

    VR has also talked about the 'supernatural darkness' effects that will occur in some zones, or cast by NPC's in an area. This could prevent line of sight, which again would need special heals that don't require line of sight to be ready for these situations. It plays into their 'choices matter' vision where you need to decide if you are going to have any of these special 'non line of sight' heals on your hotbar in case you need them.

    There may also be 'blind' effects in the game that make your character temporarily blind while under the effects of the debuff which would therefore block line of sight.

    Anyway... just thought I'd fish for some of your opinions :-)

    • 58 posts
    September 11, 2018 9:03 PM PDT

    GoofyWarriorGuy said:I'm interested in hearing others opinions on this topic and if you like Line of Sight being required for heals or if you would like the old EQ1 way of no Line of Sight being needed.

    I advocate for both as you decribed, especially given LOS heals might be more efficient.

    However, when I think about the interaction between LOS heals and darkness or blindness spells, something strikes me  As a healer, If I can see you when I start casting, and then you get covered by darkness spell, I should be able to land the heal (or maybe there is a % chance it might not land, but not a certainty)- but I wouldn't be able to start casting another LOS spell on you until I can see you again.  On the other hand, If I start casting and then I get blinded or surrounded by darkness, the heal should be interupted.  

    One spell affects you, the other affects me (the healer).  I have absolutely no basis or justification other than that's how I think it should be.  It seems realistic, which we all know is a weird thing to say in a fantasy MMO.  

    Same rule in PvE and PvP.

    Welll... you asked.  :)

     


    This post was edited by Wyvernspur at September 11, 2018 9:09 PM PDT
    • 724 posts
    September 11, 2018 11:39 PM PDT

    Interesting question. I've always taken it as a given in EQ that heals didn't need LoS. Of course this goes for several other spell lines too, like buffs, but also mob affecting spells like pacify. I like the idea above that most heals SHOULD require LoS, but that some emergency type heals might not (but cost more). For pacify or similar spells, I would like to keep the mechanic, as it allowed for some nice team work (for example, FD monk who gives the caster targets with assist, or a mage with summoned eye).

    • 2419 posts
    September 12, 2018 7:35 AM PDT

    GoofyWarriorGuy said:

    I'm interested in hearing others opinions on this topic and if you like Line of Sight being required for heals or if you would like the old EQ1 way of no Line of Sight being needed.

    changed my mind...see below.


    This post was edited by Vandraad at July 1, 2019 8:42 AM PDT
    • 89 posts
    September 12, 2018 9:49 AM PDT

    LoS should absolutely matter for healing spells, it makes no sense to be able to target a spell somewhere you can't see due to blocked sight lines.  WoW didn't require your character to be facing the target just that there be no obstruction between you, I'd be perfectly happy with similar mechanics-having to manually spin to face the target would be cumbersome and get old quickly. 

    • 945 posts
    September 12, 2018 5:31 PM PDT

    I appreciated how EQ1 did their LoS spells.  Some spells could be cast through walls at long distances while others required you to be right against the target (belly casters).  This gave massive diversity to the gameplay.  With that said, whatever the devs decide, I hope that it works the same way for NPCs as it does PCs.  An annoying part of EQ1 was running out of LoS of a caster NPC only to be nuked through 3 walls and being WAY out of range, but if the NPC you are casting a spell on happens to get 1' out of range while you are casting, your spell fails.

    • 87 posts
    September 13, 2018 9:54 AM PDT

    Jepp line of sight for healing spells attleast direct heals, group heals might be more tricky to have a line of sight when only half the group is in sight ><

    • 74 posts
    September 20, 2018 5:19 PM PDT

    Darch said:

    I appreciated how EQ1 did their LoS spells.  Some spells could be cast through walls at long distances while others required you to be right against the target (belly casters).  This gave massive diversity to the gameplay.  With that said, whatever the devs decide, I hope that it works the same way for NPCs as it does PCs.  An annoying part of EQ1 was running out of LoS of a caster NPC only to be nuked through 3 walls and being WAY out of range, but if the NPC you are casting a spell on happens to get 1' out of range while you are casting, your spell fails.

     

    I respectfully disagree.

     

    As a long-time EQ player on live, and someone who came back for the TLP's, I still don't understand the point of belly-casters existing, other than lazy programming/game-design.

     

    And as someone who played a Cleric for years on P99, thanks - but I don't want to stare into a wall anymore spamming heals. I don't know how many bosses I've killed without actually seeing them.

    • 724 posts
    September 20, 2018 11:56 PM PDT

    Dulu said: 

    And as someone who played a Cleric for years on P99, thanks - but I don't want to stare into a wall anymore spamming heals. I don't know how many bosses I've killed without actually seeing them.

    Quite true...but I think that has more to do with EQ's design. It was more efficient to avoid AE damage and focus single target heals on the tank, since there were no efficient group heal spells.

    In VG it was different, the disciple for example could use their melee triggered group heal practically at will (no or low mana cost iirc, it just required a crit hit to trigger). This allowed them to stay in LoS and heal their group, only having to dodge really deadly AEs.

    Of course I don't propose "free" group heals for all healers, but making them more accessible and more efficient to use would be a good thing IMO.

    • 646 posts
    September 21, 2018 9:05 AM PDT

    Zyellinia said:LoS should absolutely matter for healing spells, it makes no sense to be able to target a spell somewhere you can't see due to blocked sight lines.  WoW didn't require your character to be facing the target just that there be no obstruction between you, I'd be perfectly happy with similar mechanics-having to manually spin to face the target would be cumbersome and get old quickly.

    I agree. LoS is a mechanic that forces you to think about your position in relation to other players and the environment. As a healer, our job already requires a large amount of situational awareness, and I think considering line of sight is a necessary component of that. It also puts some responsibility on the players you're trying to heal. They need to have some awareness of where they are in relation to their healer, instead of running off like headless chickens.

    • 1479 posts
    September 21, 2018 11:40 AM PDT

    I too think LoS is important, but I'm not really set on the "facing direction" component. It can be important but can also be insanely irritating especially with lag of character's position, or very close to a character (where he can run behind you in a step).

     

    I liked on how some EQ spells, link seeing throught your target's eye, could be jumped from mob to mob by using their own line of sight to expand yours. That allowed to scout a whole dungeon by using patrols and such.

    • 28 posts
    September 21, 2018 1:41 PM PDT

    I've always found it easiest to think of heals as Negative Nukes or Negative DoTs.

    With this in mind, like nukes, DoTs, etc... Some of them require LoS. Some of the bolts required a clear direct path... I see no reason why very powerful heals cannot be similar. Let's say the longer range the heal the less line of sight it takes. This would leave options for "healing bolts/HoT" (longer cast time, requires LoS), "healing directly" (long range, no LoS needed, quick) , "healing God-Rays/AE heals/Group Heals" , "ae Healing Rain" ... stuff like that.

    • 1479 posts
    September 21, 2018 1:50 PM PDT

    Jordan said:

    I've always found it easiest to think of heals as Negative Nukes or Negative DoTs.

    With this in mind, like nukes, DoTs, etc... Some of them require LoS. Some of the bolts required a clear direct path... I see no reason why very powerful heals cannot be similar. Let's say the longer range the heal the less line of sight it takes. This would leave options for "healing bolts/HoT" (longer cast time, requires LoS), "healing directly" (long range, no LoS needed, quick) , "healing God-Rays/AE heals/Group Heals" , "ae Healing Rain" ... stuff like that.

     

    That reminds me, withouth advocating for or against the idea, of bolt spells in EQ (mostly wizard spells).  As far as I remember, they seemed to be intercepted by friendy players if they were in the path of the projectile. That actually resulted in showing no damage and spending mana for nothing, which was a bit odd and hazardous as the game was completely teamplay based but players could negatively impact your damage if they were badly positionned.

    • 28 posts
    September 21, 2018 2:57 PM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    Jordan said:

    I've always found it easiest to think of heals as Negative Nukes or Negative DoTs.

    With this in mind, like nukes, DoTs, etc... Some of them require LoS. Some of the bolts required a clear direct path... I see no reason why very powerful heals cannot be similar. Let's say the longer range the heal the less line of sight it takes. This would leave options for "healing bolts/HoT" (longer cast time, requires LoS), "healing directly" (long range, no LoS needed, quick) , "healing God-Rays/AE heals/Group Heals" , "ae Healing Rain" ... stuff like that.

     

    That reminds me, withouth advocating for or against the idea, of bolt spells in EQ (mostly wizard spells).  As far as I remember, they seemed to be intercepted by friendy players if they were in the path of the projectile. That actually resulted in showing no damage and spending mana for nothing, which was a bit odd and hazardous as the game was completely teamplay based but players could negatively impact your damage if they were badly positionned.

    Yeah I'm not advocating "bolts" EQ style. I'd rather see a "bolt" simply be a visual effect that implies LoS is needed. If there are other party members or mobs in the way it will go through them. If there are walls or floors in the way... sorry Cleric! Channeling fails. This would be reserved for the large splashes of HoT I would guess. I've seen some games where HoTs and reactive heals are WOAH good. Restricting these to LoS and maybe a targeted God-Ray/AE Rain would also require a LoS simply because they are so so good. 

    Mauvais what class you think you'll play first? ^.^

    • 1479 posts
    September 21, 2018 3:21 PM PDT

    Jordan said:

    MauvaisOeil said:

    Jordan said:

    I've always found it easiest to think of heals as Negative Nukes or Negative DoTs.

    With this in mind, like nukes, DoTs, etc... Some of them require LoS. Some of the bolts required a clear direct path... I see no reason why very powerful heals cannot be similar. Let's say the longer range the heal the less line of sight it takes. This would leave options for "healing bolts/HoT" (longer cast time, requires LoS), "healing directly" (long range, no LoS needed, quick) , "healing God-Rays/AE heals/Group Heals" , "ae Healing Rain" ... stuff like that.

     

    That reminds me, withouth advocating for or against the idea, of bolt spells in EQ (mostly wizard spells).  As far as I remember, they seemed to be intercepted by friendy players if they were in the path of the projectile. That actually resulted in showing no damage and spending mana for nothing, which was a bit odd and hazardous as the game was completely teamplay based but players could negatively impact your damage if they were badly positionned.

    Yeah I'm not advocating "bolts" EQ style. I'd rather see a "bolt" simply be a visual effect that implies LoS is needed. If there are other party members or mobs in the way it will go through them. If there are walls or floors in the way... sorry Cleric! Channeling fails. This would be reserved for the large splashes of HoT I would guess. I've seen some games where HoTs and reactive heals are WOAH good. Restricting these to LoS and maybe a targeted God-Ray/AE Rain would also require a LoS simply because they are so so good. 

    Mauvais what class you think you'll play first? ^.^

    Yeah I just jumped on the subject as it was here and it sparkled in my memory. I'm not really fond of healers that can heal you withouth technically seeing you, as it can break some basic game mechanic (healing people from behind a wall outside of black rose keep, as an example). The idea of channeled spells in other games you can continue even after going behind a wall are usually bugs or an absence of check of conditions once the cast is started, not really for that either.

     

    For the class I'd play ? I'll play a tank that's sure, I balanced between Warrior and Direlord for a long time but Pantheon's iteration of warriors looks too much based on shield for my, I like the warrior's idea of freedom of weapons, depending of the needs, so I'll probably choose the direlord if they are not proefficient and lack skills to use two weapons or one two hander with efficiency. I allways see yhe warrior as a master at arms, and battle, not as a spartan or a knight with a sword and board : personnal view only ofc.

     

    My guess for you is : if the necromancer is not out at launch, what will you play ?

    • 28 posts
    September 21, 2018 7:11 PM PDT

    Necromancer will not be available by the start alpha. I'm sure of it :(

    I will probably check out a variety of classes and dip a few toes in each bath. I'll start with bard, cleric, wizard, enchanter, or direlord ( depending on if bard is available :P )

    I like being a cleric very much as long as abilities are not underwhelming. Lack of variety of ways to heal and manage aggro and/or lull will trigger some apathy on my want to play a cleric. Also I don't usually like to roll a cleric until I know what I'm doing enough to make him a specifically strong and tanky practitioner of the strongest healing magic with the ability to throw down on the undead. Lull/Pacify/Memblur is also in my realm of expectations. I like a tank, but I like a high aggro tank. I do enjoy healing, but Paladin is not my speed. That leaves direlord--from what I've seen I am not too worried that this will not be entertaining. I am a master CCer. I Know I'd be good at Enchanter or Bard. If Wizard is anything like Vanguard Sorcerer then I will certainly be interested in that. I've even been known to go rogue or ranger (always chasing that bow combat).

    It's hard to pick

    Wizard, Cleric, or Enchanter most likely. I will want to at least peek into Direlord and Ranger even if I don't play him or her long.

     


    This post was edited by Jordan at September 21, 2018 7:11 PM PDT
    • 768 posts
    December 26, 2018 3:09 AM PST

    There are several factors that come in to play when casting heals.

    I'ld say that the proximity is primary requirement for the spells of healers to land. 

    Giving different ranges to different spells allows for alternative playstyles and strategies. 

    The fact that some spells might have Line of Sight requirements, actually gives more challenge to other members of the group. It should not only be the healer that is worrying about their placement. The dps and tanks should be concerning themselves about that as wel. Especially in Pantheon, where they are aiming for no braindead keymashing. 

     

    a) Line of sight should definately be a thing for healers.

    b) Proximity of the target to the healer.

    c) Flavour of healingspell.

     

    1/ Direct Heals (DH) would require proximity check and line of sight.

    2/ Heal over Time (Hot): a proximity check, max amount of targets check.

    3/ Solo Heal (SH): a proximity check, line of sight.

    4/ Group Heal HP: a proximity check, line of sight and max amount of targets check.

    5/ Solo Heal Mitigation: a proximity check.

    6/ Group Heal Mitigation: a proximity check and max amount of targets check.

    7/ Reactive Solo Heal: a proximity check, Line of Sight.

    8/ Reactive Group Heal: a proximity check, Line of Sight and max amount of targets check.

    9/ Solo Revive spell: a proximity check, line of sight.

    10/ Group revive spell: a line of sight check and max amount of targets check.

    11/ Augmenting buffs in combat: a proximity check

    12/ Augmenting buffs out of combat: No check, auto-land when in rang and lasting the duration of that spell. (usually, permanently when in same group)

     

    The reason I'ld give revive spells a proximity check is that it will depend on the actual spell, if it's out of combat or in combat. Out of combat without range restrictions would help with whipes or retrieving corpses in terrible placements. In combat it makes more sense to give them a range limit. It will prevent groups from going into godmode and just keep on killing/whiping where ever people are landing.

    Mitigation increase spells (thinking of shamans), I find do not have to depend so heavely on Line of Sight, rather on the proximity to the healer. As it is an enhancement landing on an area or player within that area. (it concerns really breaking down what's behind shamanic warding or mitigation related spells). They channel these wardlike-spells rather then they cast them. If you see what I mean.


    This post was edited by Barin999 at December 26, 2018 3:18 AM PST
    • 124 posts
    January 10, 2019 6:30 AM PST

    First of all, i didn't read everything . . .

    But what triggers me is that i cannot remember is casting heals without line of sight. What i remember is that it was required for you to be in sight when you started to cast a healing spell, but only needed to be in range of the spell for it to land. 

    I do agree tho, that you should always be in sight for a heal to be cast or to land. But in between? Say the tank pulls a mob, dissappears for a second behind a pillar breaking line of sight. If the cast is already on the way and the time to land the tank is past the pillar, i can't see the heal being interrupted. I know where he is?

    Completely different story for all the other situations, where you cannot see the player you're healing when starting the cast or finishing the cast. In those situations i agree you should always see them.

    • 100 posts
    January 10, 2019 6:49 AM PST

    Coming from DAoC, I think LoS AND Facing your target is important when casting spell (even instant spells).
    Although in DAoC you had a command to instantly facelock your target so it wasn't super hard but you had to be mindful or your positioning and you couldn't run away and cast instant spell behind you etc.

    Although facing was very loose it was pretty much 180 degrees in fron of the character.

    You also had group heal that would heal anyone in the group withing range without other restriction.


    This post was edited by Khraag at January 10, 2019 6:51 AM PST
    • 6 posts
    January 11, 2019 11:13 AM PST

    I think EQ1 didn't have LoS for heals for the simple reason that a 1 inch change of elevation could sometimes block line of sight.  If your ice Comet doesn't land because of that tiny elevation issue, it sucks but you can usually recover.  If your complete heal doesn't land because you can "only" see 99.999% of your target, then the tank dies, group wipes and so forth, it becomes a bigger issue.  I imagine with modern systems, this sort of thing won't happen.  As long as I can see some part of my target, I should be able to cast upon them whether that be an offensive or defensive spell.

    ~Dracomir

    • 1921 posts
    January 27, 2019 2:00 PM PST

    It will limit encounter design if PC's require LOS for heals.  As, essentially, what you're asking healers to do is stand in the AE to perform their role.  With spells that have a casting time, and can be interrupted to lose mana.

    Which is fine, if that's what you enjoy, and how you want the game to play.  Personally, I would rather heals not require LOS, due to all the historical reasons why EQ1 didn't need it, and being able to heal the FD puller was pretty handy.

    • 18 posts
    May 18, 2019 5:17 PM PDT

    I can see room for both type of heal spells. Spells that have additional requirements should be stronger, because they're more difficult to use. 

    • 5 posts
    June 28, 2019 8:24 PM PDT
    I like LOS in casting heals, but sometimes you might need to be able to do it while out of sight. What about some type of system where heals are LOS based. But if you group with people you can gain an affinity/friendship/trust what ever you want to call it that you level up with other players. It would encourage going and making friends that you spend time with. Once you get high enough in that bond your heals don't need to be LOS and maybe even slightly more affective. Could be another mechanic for guilds, the MT would have spend time with the healers to Max out their bonds with each other before raids that require hiding behind things. Just a quick thought
    • 216 posts
    June 29, 2019 1:09 PM PDT

    I think LOS requirements are the way to go, maybe not so far that you have to be facing the target though.

    • 2419 posts
    July 1, 2019 8:41 AM PDT

    vjek said:

    It will limit encounter design if PC's require LOS for heals.  As, essentially, what you're asking healers to do is stand in the AE to perform their role.  With spells that have a casting time, and can be interrupted to lose mana.

    Which is fine, if that's what you enjoy, and how you want the game to play.  Personally, I would rather heals not require LOS, due to all the historical reasons why EQ1 didn't need it, and being able to heal the FD puller was pretty handy.

    Agreed.

    By not requireing LoS for heals, it increases the design options for both raid and group content.  Much of the strategy of an EQ1 encounters was actually figuriing out if you needed to hide the clerics and, if so, where was the best place to do it.  Sometimes that perfect spot wasn't where you would initially thought it would be.  There was a couple encounters in Ssra temple where a boss needed to be pulled to a different room just so you could hide the clerics.

    VR could very well add different types of AoEs such that hiding isn't necessary but position and direction is important.  Frontal-cone AoEs, 180-degree AoEs or even just keeping the mob moving such that it cannot cast spells are all good design choices.

    But speaking of LoS, I do hope that Pantheon uses a far smarter algorithm, hopefully one actually based upon eye-to-eye lines, not feet-to-feet like EQ1.