| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Erlwith
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 1626
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
1) The running/healing wasn't shoddy, the healing was. <-- But you wouldn't have any idea because that log doesn't tell you the length of time that passed between me running and being healed OR how much I healed for.
2) I wasn't talking about damage capability from that log, just healing ability.
That said, having tested it all further, the healing changes aren't as bad as I originally thought.
And mass healing? Great utility spell, rarely used, but still useful in some circumstances. Why is that gone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Burzuk
Implementor
Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 529
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Erlwith, your numbers are all completely wrong. You know why? You're not even reading your own score output properly:
This means you currently have 21 con: your BASE con is 24, you're wearing an ADDITIONAL -3 con, and your TOTAL con penalty is -4 (i.e. as a dwarf, your MAXIMUM con is 25, and 25-4=21, your current con). -4 is a pretty hefty con penalty. Notice what I've said here:
| Burzuk wrote: |
| The con issue is a non-starter: you can get up to +4 con on a single item via gambled eq, not to mention using trains, normal +con eq like nice looking rings and belt of life, etc. The real issue with con and healing spells is that -con penalties actually matter to clerics now, so they can no longer stack up on massive gambled deflectives with impunity, for instance. |
Wear more +con eq and/or stop wearing the -con eq that's giving you -3 con, and your healing will go back up, instead of making completely off-base statements like this:
| Erlwith wrote: |
| Now I could get a +4 con item, true. However, I don't need 4 points of con, just 1 to make up for my -1. With just -1 con I can heal for as low as 20 hp in one heal. |
So you're wrong: you DO need a +4 con item if you're going to insist on wearing so much -con elsewhere. And healing was NOT nerfed across the board. In fact, I said the same thing earlier:
| Burzuk wrote: |
| Cure critical heals exactly as much as it used to -- the relevant change for healers is that it had its mana cost increased to make it more comparable to the mana efficiency of the other spells |
The only spell that was actually decreased in healing power was heal, and that was to justify making it cost less and therefore be more mana efficient as well. If you'd keep your con maxed, it would be obvious that healing has NOT been decreased across the board. And if warriors have to worry about keeping their str/dex maxed for their combat skills to work well, why shouldn't healers have to worry about keeping their con maxed for their healing?
What was nerfed though is the ability for all clerical healing classes to sit-and-spam their strongest healing spell while tanking. And I think anyone who's fought against an opponent with the old heal would appreciate this change.
| Erlwith wrote: |
| Yeah, I have fought Cleric classes with a non-cleric and it sucks, but it's supposed to suck. Shamans were powerhouses with the ability to stay alive and do massive damage. Healers aren't, with the ability to do a fraction of Shaman damage with a fraction of our previous healing capabilities. |
Shamans do massive damage and healer's don't? Neither healers nor shamans have enhanced damage, both have two attacks and no dual wield, both shield block identically, and divine retribution and flay health are both affbreak dependent (and truth be told, I prefer divine because I can cast OTHER spells while divine is working, such as dispel magic). Harm and cause crit have cooldowns and frankly, you can just heal the damage right back with even better mana efficiency. Which shaman skills are you pointing to where shamans are getting all this wonderful damage from? And if you stand toe-to-toe with a shaman, they're now restricted to cure serious while you can still use cure crit, nevermind a healer's big buffs like accession and escape spells like heaven's gate. Who has the greater ability to stay alive?
You're probably fighting shamans with much better hit/dam and thinking it's a class issue. Guess what? You or any other healer with Taere's eq would be dishing out as much damage as he does, too. But most healers prefer to hoard saves instead. On the other hand, most shamans are smart enough to only use saves when fighting enemies like other shamans. Your call.
| Erlwith wrote: |
| I guess it's a narrow view if you think it's a good idea, but take away the bells and whistles and a nerf is what you've got. |
No, you had said that the point of the changes was to nerf heal, and that the rest was simply "glamified" stuff on top of it. I think I've demonstrated at some length what the reasons behind the healing changes are. Plus only one of the affected classes even has heal to begin with, so saying that it's all just a "glamified" heal nerf is ludicrous.
| Erlwith wrote: |
| All of our damage spells have been decreased and now our healing spells have as well, so what Rolf managed to do isn't really relevant to what Healers can do now. |
For the umpteempth time, divine retribution does EXACTLY AS MUCH DAMAGE as it used to if you wear affbreaks. It's your responsibility to figure out how much the divine retribution damage means to your character by how much affbreak you're willing to wear for it. And dispel undead? Where did you think that spell came from? When I first gave dispel undead to healers over purge, it did NO damage to non-undeads -- and I played my best AR healer character that way (he's now a well-known named mob). It was only afterwards that Stryth caved to player whining to change dispel undead to being identical to dispel evil, over my protests. The way I see it, I'm being quite generous in granting reduced-vs-livings dispel undeads, rather than the no-damage-vs-livings dispel undeads that I used with my last healer. You see the dispel undead damage as nerfage, whereas I see it as being even better than when I used it as a mortal. On the subject of damage, we're talking about healers, after all.
I've already explained elsewhere that the old dispel evil/dispel undead was a one-round version of wrath (identical per-round damage output and mana efficiency -- wrath is just a longer casting lag version that also curses). This is a ludicrous aff spell for a healer. And that's why I originally made dispel undead no damage vs living targets at ALL, instead of the wrath-equivalent dispel evil that healers used to have.
And you've completely missed my point. I brought Rolf up as an example of someone who was good at keeping a safe distance to heal, then coming back to fight and use only offensive spells while tanking. If you do this with either of the clerical classes, you won't have any problems with the healing changes. If your ONLY tactic was the sit-and-spam though, then you'll need to learn to play better.
| Erlwith wrote: |
| The idea here is to give each spell a distinct purpose rather then just making one heal for more than the other. Heal would heal for an immense amount. Cure critical would heal greatly also but would be much more con dependant. It would be riskier but with greater reward. Cure serious would be less risky with less reward but would cast faster to make up for it. |
What's "risky" about the cure critical you're proposing? It's straight high healing and high mana efficiency. If you think making it essentially a 1.5 round version of the same spell (with very significantly improved mana efficiency to boot) is somehow making it "risky", you're dead wrong. People have no qualms spamming hellstream and wrath (with paladin trance) despite their longer casting lags.
I know you see yourself as simply presenting some dissenting alternatives (a line of discussion that I'm quite open to), but it would be nice if you got your facts straight before you inadvertantly spread any misinformation.
| Quote: |
| And mass healing? Great utility spell, rarely used, but still useful in some circumstances. Why is that gone? |
A better question is: since healers already have heal (which shamans don't) and now they have better casting of healing spells as well (can cast cure crit while tanking, can use cure serious + cure continual combo for uber mana efficiency healing): why should healers have mass healing on top of all that? They're already much better at healing than shamans are without it.
Also, being able to heal multiple targets at the same time is a specialized enough healing ability to be reserved for a boon in the religion module. And no, it won't be in the form of the mass healing spell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erlwith
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 1626
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Erlwith, your numbers are all completely wrong. You know why? You're not even reading your own score output properly: |
As a point of reference, I realized after the fact that at the time I was casting heal, my con was lowered by three. However, during cure critical it was lowered by 1. It was only after that when someone gave me their silver pendant that I suffered another 2 points of con.
| Quote: |
| Shamans do massive damage and healer's don't? Neither healers nor shamans have enhanced damage, both have two attacks and no dual wield, both shield block identically, and divine retribution and flay health are both affbreak dependent (and truth be told, I prefer divine because I can cast OTHER spells while divine is working, such as dispel magic). Harm and cause crit have cooldowns and frankly, you can just heal the damage right back with even better mana efficiency. Which shaman skills are you pointing to where shamans are getting all this wonderful damage from? And if you stand toe-to-toe with a shaman, they're now restricted to cure serious while you can still use cure crit, nevermind a healer's big buffs like accession and escape spells like heaven's gate. Who has the greater ability to stay alive? |
My comment wasn't not whining about the powers of Shaman nor the lack thereof in comparison to Healers. The point was simply in reference to you saying Shamans were hit harder by this change. They should have been hit harder, I've seen constant complaints from lots of players how Human Shamans pwn. You don't hear that about Healers. Yes we have survivability, but we don't have the damage capabilities shaman do.
| Code: |
* These clerical spells are the reverse of healing spells, and thus they
inflict full damage regardless of the target's health or protections.
|
Help Harm right there. Yes, Healers can just heal it back... I guess, but the rest of the classes pretty much can't. That was my point, not that Shamans are cool and Healers are not.
Like I said, the nerfage isn't as bad as I originally thought.
And as far as equipment, my options are greatly reduced considering my class/align/race combo. Though I guess that's my fault for picking that combo.</sarcasm>
I'm just looking forward to the religion mod to make up for what we've lost.
Last edited by Erlwith on Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:07 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Burzuk
Implementor
Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 529
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
How about I simplify things for you this way: dwarf healers should have 25 con for maximal healing. Your current "Con: 24 (24+0)" is STILL penalized because you're NOT at your race's maximum con -- you need "Con: 25 (24+1)". You can still wear -con eq, but you just need more +con to offset the -con, that's all.
From the helpfile:
| Code: |
* Targets that have lost some constitution compared to the maximum possible
for their race will heal at a reduced rate from spells of this type. This
decrease is directly proportional to their constitution loss. |
Con penalty is calculated from the maximum possible con for your race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kammkala6
Joined: 04 Dec 2005
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I like the way many changes have been made that penalize those chars with deaths, its a good way to make people make new chars often. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in 
