Templar: "restore yourself and your allies in radiant light" - CORRECTION: "your group only"

ExistingRug61

Dunning_Kruger wrote: »

I love how people conveniently bring up “damage doesn’t have the same restriction” when smart damage doesn’t exist. No one is out here casting mages wrath looking at a wall and the game is checking a 30 yard radius for an executable target for you getting you a hands free reward for your button press. But your smart heals did.

@Dunning_Kruger
Sure, smart heals operate differently to any damage dealing skill. I am happy to accept that if smart heals are something that cause a performance issue that they should be looked at (preferably by modifying how these skills function so they can still be consistent between grouped/ungrouped).

But what about all the other forms of non-single-target buffs/healing that comes in the form of PB AoE or Ground AoE?
These have exact damage dealing equivalents.

Example:
Enemy casts Twisting Path somewhere. I cast Refreshing Path over the top.
Result:
I and all of my allies will take damage from the Twisting Path, irrespective of our grouped/ungrouped status, or that of the enemy. However, only I and those allies who happened to be group with get healed.
How does that make balance sense?
The two skills in question are basically direct mirrors/counters to each other, yet with the current restriction the end result is not consistent.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

ExistingRug61 wrote: »

Dunning_Kruger wrote: »

I love how people conveniently bring up “damage doesn’t have the same restriction” when smart damage doesn’t exist. No one is out here casting mages wrath looking at a wall and the game is checking a 30 yard radius for an executable target for you getting you a hands free reward for your button press. But your smart heals did.

@Dunning_Kruger
Sure, smart heals operate differently to any damage dealing skill. I am happy to accept that if smart heals are something that cause a performance issue that they should be looked at (preferably by modifying how these skills function so they can still be consistent between grouped/ungrouped).

But what about all the other forms of non-single-target buffs/healing that comes in the form of PB AoE or Ground AoE?
These have exact damage dealing equivalents.

Example:
Enemy casts Twisting Path somewhere. I cast Refreshing Path over the top.
Result:
I and all of my allies will take damage from the Twisting Path, irrespective of our grouped/ungrouped status, or that of the enemy. However, only I and those allies who happened to be group with get healed.
How does that make balance sense?
The two skills in question are basically direct mirrors/counters to each other, yet with the current restriction the end result is not consistent.

You could already make this argument previously. Twisting hits up to 64 players in the area whereas Refreshing hits only 6 because it is a healing ability.

There has always been a difference between dmg and healing abilities now is no different.

renne

Lmaoooo, the heal healing up to 6 people and not the damage AoE that has to run calculations on up to 64 people is DEFINITELY the problem.

Pauwer

Templar skills do not seem to be healing anyone but me, when im solo.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

renne wrote: »

Lmaoooo, the heal healing up to 6 people and not the damage AoE that has to run calculations on up to 64 people is DEFINITELY the problem.

You're right it was a big problem back when there was an AOE cap with graduated damage based on number of enemies hit.

first 6 ppl was full dmg, next 18 was 1/2 iirc and past that was 1/4 dmg or something like this.

Thats why people were calling to remove aoe caps on dmg to lessen calculations.

Xzysts

Dyngrin wrote: »

It is absurd in an MMO (which ESO is no longer, PVP-wise), that a player that has offensive abilities can attack all players in an opposing faction, but a player that has healing/support abilities CANNOT HELP ALL PLAYERS IN THEIR OWN FACTION (only their group, if any). Some of us actually like to heal/buff any player in their faction in need, grouped or not.

Since the dawn of Alliance vs Alliance MMOs (and I have played nearly all of them), a player could build a healer/support avatar TO SUPPORT THEIR FACTION. This too has been part of ESO's design since the very beginning (and I've been playing ESO that long). It stems from the classic DPS/Ranged, Tank/Melee, Healer/Buffer archetypes that pre-dated MMOs.

For ZOS to so casually make such a huge design change for "behavioral" reasons is inexcusable.

For those players not against the change or even for it, you have no idea how much healing and buffing you were getting from the many healers/buffers that WERE PLAYING, so enjoy DYING MORE QUICKLY AND MORE OFTEN, and the same horrible lag.

--Dyn The Disgusted

Lol, I was the one that proposed these ideas to ZOs to limit group size and healing to only members in your group. It went all the way to the top and they actually did it. I am very happy they did, because people like you Zerg surf and destroy server performance which means nobody can play.

Sandman929

Almost all heals, and in fact healing in general is designed as smart healing, which is the real problem. If ZOS didn't make a change like this in isolation and instead reworked healing abilities to have less smart healing and more targeted healing, healing outside your group would be more skillful, fun, and functional. Like AoE damage, AoE healing could be smaller radius and less potent and like single target damage, single target healing would require you to aim at allies. Some heals work this way already and can be used to heal ungrouped allies, but those skills are far too few because ZOS designed healing around smart healing.

Starshadw

Sandman929 wrote: »

Almost all heals, and in fact healing in general is designed as smart healing, which is the real problem. If ZOS didn't make a change like this in isolation and instead reworked healing abilities to have less smart healing and more targeted healing, healing outside your group would be more skillful, fun, and functional. Like AoE damage, AoE healing could be smaller radius and less potent and like single target damage, single target healing would require you to aim at allies. Some heals work this way already and can be used to heal ungrouped allies, but those skills are far too few because ZOS designed healing around smart healing.

Please no more "targeting required" healing. The reason the game started with 100% smart healing is because the game is far more dynamic when it comes to character movement. Characters are constantly in motion unlike many other MMOs. That hasn't changed, yet again and again, ZOS makes it more difficult for healers to heal.

merevie

I have necro and templar healers.
I totally support the change.

It's taught people awareness of big red circles. That there are things called oils. That they are not actually an un-killable machine of death. To Look Up and Across and Think With Brain before streaking into 60 enemy. Okay, some people.

As a healer, my fingers heartily thank Zos now I am no longer frantically spamming as people have...self heals slotted...purge...and more than paper armor.

And my heals go on my group, not some random dude afk behind a rock.

Best. Change. Ever.

And yes, people move a lot. If you know your people, you know when they're going to take risks, when they're going to run and when to do offensive heals, not defensive.

Vevvev

Greasytengu wrote: »

Ones I can confirm:

Mend Wounds (the Psijiic heal)

Wait that actually works? Now I wanna test it out.

DemonNinja

The healing restrictions in PvP are a really bad solution to a fundamental problem which is that their server architecture is crap. I agree, support players not being able to heal people in Cyrodiil is fundamentally BAD game design with regards to what Cyrodiil is. I seriously hope the developers reconsider this, and that the next incremental has some serious work behind with regards to bug fixes.

JkahrrRadnar

So let me get this straight.

After a 1yr break I return to find that playing PVP as a healer now requires one of three things:

a) beg in chat to be let into a group of randos. This might take 5min or just never happen. I am then forced to follow around that group for the length of my playtime, no matter where they decide to go, unless I want to go back to begging.
b) join a guild which will invariably kick me out unless I commit to their playtime/trading/scheduling requirements.
c) scrap my templar healer and play tank instead.

Are you effing kidding me? I've been playing this game for over 6 damn years, have had a paid sub for at least 3 of them, and seen a lot of questionable changes made. But this is bloody **** ridiculous.

Why don't you just eliminate solo players altogether? Why TF are those playing support punished for their choice while everybody else can play as normal?

Greasytengu

JkahrrRadnar wrote: »

So let me get this straight.

After a 1yr break I return to find that playing PVP as a healer now requires one of three things:

a) beg in chat to be let into a group of randos. This might take 5min or just never happen. I am then forced to follow around that group for the length of my playtime, no matter where they decide to go, unless I want to go back to begging.
b) join a guild which will invariably kick me out unless I commit to their playtime/trading/scheduling requirements.
c) scrap my templar healer and play tank instead.

Are you effing kidding me? I've been playing this game for over 6 damn years, have had a paid sub for at least 3 of them, and seen a lot of questionable changes made. But this is bloody **** ridiculous.

Why don't you just eliminate solo players altogether? Why TF are those playing support punished for their choice while everybody else can play as normal?

the group only healing is getting reverted, im assuming with the next dungeon DLC pack, but for now you are stuck with group only heals.

renne

They said they're going to revert the healing changes.

JkahrrRadnar

@Greasytengu @renne where was this announced?

renne

JkahrrRadnar wrote: »

@Greasytengu @renne where was this announced?

Brian brought it up in the live stream earlier this week. It wasn't said when it was going to be reverted - given they just did it on a random patch I wish they'd just done it on this weeks one, especially for console which was after the stream as we've had this longer anyway, but it will happen At Some Point.

JkahrrRadnar

Well, then congrats ZoS on the *** communication. How about a proper post, perhaps? What are the stickies for?

I don't wanna know how many new players are going into Cyro right now because of the event, don't know why they cannot heal anyone/nobody heals them, don't know it's gonna get reverted either and consequently decide PvP isn't for them.

How long exactly has it been since <50 campaign was pop locked during regular prime time?

But maybe this is the behavioural change they wanted after all: Strengthen groups, discourage randos/new players, less overall traffic, fewer calculations, fewer problems. Good job.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

They didn't say it was being reverted, they said that 'During the proc-disable test they will revert it'.
That doesn't mean that they will be reverting it or making any other changes after the test at all.
Hopefully the communication will be better but equally people shouldn't build their hopes up for something unconfirmed.

Kwoung

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

They didn't say it was being reverted, they said that 'During the proc-disable test they will revert it'.
That doesn't mean that they will be reverting it or making any other changes after the test at all.
Hopefully the communication will be better but equally people shouldn't build their hopes up for something unconfirmed.

Pretty sure they flat out said they are reverting it, as they found it made no difference and basically ticked off the playebase.

badmojo

Anyone have a timestamp and link? Clip of it? I watched a bit of the stream but I dont want to sit through the whole thing to find that part.

Kwoung

badmojo wrote: »

Anyone have a timestamp and link? Clip of it? I watched a bit of the stream but I dont want to sit through the whole thing to find that part.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/889112322?filter=archives&sort=time
04:17:35

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Kwoung wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

Anyone have a timestamp and link? Clip of it? I watched a bit of the stream but I dont want to sit through the whole thing to find that part.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/889112322?filter=archives&sort=time
04:17:35

"During that we're also go to revert one of the things we did before". I understood it as it will be during the test, but he could mean during and then afterwards.

badmojo

Kwoung wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

Anyone have a timestamp and link? Clip of it? I watched a bit of the stream but I dont want to sit through the whole thing to find that part.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/889112322?filter=archives&sort=time
04:17:35

Thanks!

Great news, I am glad our feedback made a difference.

Kwoung

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

Anyone have a timestamp and link? Clip of it? I watched a bit of the stream but I dont want to sit through the whole thing to find that part.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/889112322?filter=archives&sort=time
04:17:35

"During that we're also go to revert one of the things we did before". I understood it as it will be during the test, but he could mean during and then afterwards.

Yeah, they were not 100% clear on that part. But since his follow up listed all the reasons why it didn't make a difference and ticked everyone off, I am assuming that they are reverting it during that test... and then leaving it that way.