Forums » Pantheon Classes

Line of Sight for heal spells

    • 367 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 :-)

    • 28 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
    • 495 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).

    • 1128 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.

    I think that all spells should be treated equally.  Just as damage spells need LoS, so should heal spells.  Fundamentally they are no different.  You are still attempting to apply some effect onto someone else.

    To require LoS adds a layer of complexity which I feel is needed.  Everyone should be mindful of where they are in relation to everyone and every thing around them.  It also allows for effects like Blind to actually be dangerous.

    • 74 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. 

    • 287 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.

    • 90 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 ><

    • 84 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.

    • 495 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.

    • 449 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.

    • 1157 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.

    • 36 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.

    • 1157 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.

    • 36 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? ^.^

    • 1157 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 ?

    • 36 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