PDA

View Full Version : Radiant Servant Empower Healing- alternative for less overheal waste



Angelus_dead
05-14-2010, 08:45 PM
Currently announced version:
Radiant Servant II makes your Empower Healing give a 75% bonus to hitpoints instead of 50%.

Problem:
Increasing hitpoints bonus to 75% will fairly often be wasted to no benefit, because your spell would already refill the target to max.

Alternate version 1:
Radiant Servant II reduces the total spellpoint cost by 16% when using Empower Healing.

Alternate version 2:
Radiant Servant II causes Empower Healing to give a 66% bonus to hitpoints and reduce the total spellpoint cost by 5%.

Motivation:
Either of those variations would cause a similar increase to efficiency (hitpoint per spellpoint), but with less of a boost to throughput (hitpoint per spell), meaning they will also be useful to Clerics who are healing people whose hitpoint totals aren't enough to absorb a whole +75% spell.

Dylos_Moon
05-14-2010, 09:02 PM
Empower Healing can already be decreased down to costing 4sp, if the cost is further decreased by 16%, this would mean that:

A level 1 spell with just empower healing would cost 12 (11.76) sp instead of 14, a level 2 with just EH would cost 20, and anything beyond level 2 would cost less sp to use empower healing then to not - with Mass Heal costing 45 (45.32) sp instead of 54 it costs now with empower heal.

A 5% decrease in cost would only result in mass heal costing 51 sp compared to the 54 it costs now.

I feel that a -4sp to the cost of EH would be better then a -16%, this way it could cost a cleric with Improved Empower Healing III and either Lorrik's necklace or Efficent Metamagic - Empower Healing II on their dragontouched 0sp.

samthedagger
05-14-2010, 09:19 PM
Maybe I understand the mechanic wrong, but Improved Empower Healing does not seem to reduce the cost of Empowering down to 4 sp. It reduces it to 6 sp if you have Improved Empower Healing III.

So 75% is excessive? Use a lower-level heal then. With Empower Healing + Superior Ardor/Devotion, you can heal for +125%, meaning a mass cure moderate might be sufficient as opposed to mass cure serious. In other words, there is nothing wrong with the new mechanic. It means a lower-level healing spell might be enough as opposed to a higher-level one.

Artos_Fabril
05-14-2010, 09:25 PM
I feel that a -4sp to the cost of EH would be better then a -16%, this way it could cost a cleric with Improved Empower Healing III and either Lorrik's necklace or Efficent Metamagic - Empower Healing II on their dragontouched 0sp.
So, Alternate version 3:
Radiant Servant II reduces cost of Empowered Healing spells by 2 SP
Radiant Servant III reduces cost of Empowered Healing spells by 4 SP

Or just make it -4SP at tier II, if there's some other plan for tier III. Of course, we're all assuming that the goal is for empower healing to be more useful for the Heal spell and raid healing, rather than making it more viable for clerics to "downrank" to CSW and still get decent healing. If RS3 gives a benefit that is more geared towards end-game healing, (such as the SP reduction we're discussing here) then this is all moot.

tomfar72
05-14-2010, 10:02 PM
Currently announced version:
Radiant Servant II makes your Empower Healing give a 75% bonus to hitpoints instead of 50%.

Problem:
Increasing hitpoints bonus to 75% will fairly often be wasted to no benefit, because your spell would already refill the target to max.

Alternate version 1:
Radiant Servant II reduces the total spellpoint cost by 16% when using Empower Healing.

Alternate version 2:
Radiant Servant II causes Empower Healing to give a 66% bonus to hitpoints and reduce the total spellpoint cost by 5%.

Motivation:
Either of those variations would cause a similar increase to efficiency (hitpoint per spellpoint), but with less of a boost to throughput (hitpoint per spell), meaning they will also be useful to Clerics who are healing people whose hitpoint totals aren't enough to absorb a whole +75% spell.

I actually like it the way it's announced. It puts the healer in charge of their own SP efficiency by choosing which spell is the best to cast at the time. Sure, if all you cast is heal/mass heal, you are going to have alot of overhealing. As a cleric, you get all the cure spells loaded for free anyway, and the 75% from Emp Healing will allow you to make use of some of those spells later in the game for better SP efficiency. Not to mention it will make Emp Healing that much more atractive than Emp Spell while lvling as a healer.

sephiroth1084
05-14-2010, 10:18 PM
Not to mention it will make Emp Healing that much more atractive than Emp Spell while lvling as a healer.
I thought it was more appealing until you get BB, at which point EH is less desirable.

Dylos_Moon
05-14-2010, 10:49 PM
Maybe I understand the mechanic wrong, but Improved Empower Healing does not seem to reduce the cost of Empowering down to 4 sp. It reduces it to 6 sp if you have Improved Empower Healing III.

You are correct, the enhancement alone reduces the cost to 6sp, however lorrik's necklace or efficient metamagic - empower healing II on dragon-touched armor decreases it an additional 2 sp to 4sp. I mentioned both of these items in the last sentence of my previous post.

Angelus_dead
05-14-2010, 11:01 PM
I actually like it the way it's announced. It puts the healer in charge of their own SP efficiency by choosing which spell is the best to cast at the time.
Do you have an example of how Radiant Servant contributes to that objective?

Hendrik
05-15-2010, 08:00 AM
To end 'over-heal' waste, use other spells then Heal and Mass Heal.

:rolleyes:

RS will allow the CLR to more effectively use lesser Cure spells to be more effective.

Hendrik
05-15-2010, 08:04 AM
Do you have an example of how Radiant Servant contributes to that objective?

Hard to have an example when no-one has access to it yet.

Is RS something YOUR CLR will be taking?

Shade
05-15-2010, 08:09 AM
Won't happen as that would be a backwards step in design.

Meta magics originally used percentage based amounts. It was deemed to be too costly and unbalanced against higher level spells.

Same would happen here.

So if anything, they'd go with the new system of set cost deductions. But being you can already reduce the cost of empower heal to somethign rediculess like 6-7 sp, I can't see it being very much. Perhaps an additional -1SP.

Yea for things like the heal or mass heal spell, a +75% in most cases would be wasted. But keep in mind the much faster cure light/mod/etc mass will generally not fill most endgame targets up to full, so it will greatly increase the effecieny on these spells.

I think a decked out cleric alternating mass cures would end up with similar healing power and effeciency to a fvs using mass heal, but do it without the bigger risk of losing someone due to the very slow cast time.

Too early to say for sure tell we play with it, but looks like a sweet pre to me, as is.

sirgog
05-15-2010, 09:59 AM
Please Devs, leave this as is.

The difference between a 420 point Empowered Mass Heal and a 539 point one is substantial on an endgame melee. In particular, it's really significant on a Warforged melee.

If a Barbarian with 770hp suffered 500 damage (perhaps from being tripped while having Lailat's aggro for 2 seconds on Epic), I'd much rather heal them for 539, 'wasting' some, than heal them for 420.

sephiroth1084
05-15-2010, 12:16 PM
I think a decked out cleric alternating mass cures would end up with similar healing power and effeciency to a fvs using mass heal, but do it without the bigger risk of losing someone due to the very slow cast time.


Aside from the bigger mana pool, how would their respective healing be any different?

Angelus_dead
05-15-2010, 01:03 PM
Please Devs, leave this as is.
Do you have a reason you want that?

EDIT: Possibly you think you already supplied a reason, but you actually didn't. To suffice as a reason, it would have to demonstrate how a Cleric player who was given the choice between the official Radiant Servant and one of my suggestions would prefer the official one.


The difference between a 420 point Empowered Mass Heal and a 539 point one is substantial on an endgame melee.
Untrue. It is substantial on SOME endgame melee in SOME uncommon situations, but most of the time it won't help. But the suggested variation would be beneficial nearly anywhere.


If a Barbarian with 770hp suffered 500 damage (perhaps from being tripped while having Lailat's aggro for 2 seconds on Epic), I'd much rather heal them for 539, 'wasting' some, than heal them for 420.
Those numbers appear unrelated to what was suggested.

Angelus_dead
05-15-2010, 01:08 PM
Won't happen as that would be a backwards step in design.

Meta magics originally used percentage based amounts. It was deemed to be too costly and unbalanced against higher level spells.
That change to metamagic costs was a huge and obvious mistake which immediately wrecked gameplay, as it is what caused Wall of Fire to be stupidly overpowered. To salvage high-level content required pretty much switching over to fire-immune monsters.

Angelus_dead
05-15-2010, 01:10 PM
Hard to have an example when no-one has access to it yet.
That is a highly illogical thing to say. The guy wrote that thinks RS will have a particular effect, so obviously he should have something in mind for how that might happen.

Shade
05-15-2010, 01:13 PM
Aside from the bigger mana pool, how would their respective healing be any different?

Clerics get improved empower healing enhnacements - favored souls do not, resulting in far superior healing to sp ratio with mass cure spells. Im not sure on the exact numbers, but I think if you figure in the difference in SP vs what was saved using the enhancements, the difference is small.

Obviously both could still do it, and currently its possible a fvs is still better despite the enhancement loss. But after this pre comes into play? Clerics could surge ahead slighly in total healing ability on 1 mana bar despite the fact that bar is smaller, (using mass cures and empower healing with no other metas)

Shade
05-15-2010, 01:20 PM
That change to metamagic costs was a huge and obvious mistake which immediately wrecked gameplay, as it is what caused Wall of Fire to be stupidly overpowered. To salvage high-level content required pretty much switching over to fire-immune monsters.

Poor example.

Old system maximized wall of fire cost was similar to what it is now. (25 sp at triple the cost = 75 sp, vs 25sp +25 sp max = 50sp.)

But high level spells like delayed blast fireball were much much more expensive (40 x3 = 120sp)
.. Making wall of fire massively superior in every way.

Now with the new system at least DBF is somewhat closer to wall of fire. (50sp vs 65sp)

Angelus_dead
05-15-2010, 01:55 PM
Poor example.

Old system maximized wall of fire cost was similar to what it is now. (25 sp at triple the cost = 75 sp, vs 25sp +25 sp max = 50sp.)
It is the best and most important example. The counterexample of Wall of Fire with just Maximize is an unrealistic and misleading choice.



Old system maximized wall of fire cost was similar to what it is now. (25 sp at triple the cost = 75 sp, vs 25sp +25 sp max = 50sp.)
To say that 75 is similar to 50 is just not true.


Now with the new system at least DBF is somewhat closer to wall of fire. (50sp vs 65sp)
Yes, the numbers are closer together in the new system, and that's very bad. A Maximized DBF should cost a lot more than a Maximized Wall of Fire, because the higher level spell should be better. The source of the problem is that even with no metamagics in use a DBF is not worth the sp cost.

Borror0
05-15-2010, 01:56 PM
Old system maximized wall of fire cost was similar to what it is now. (25 sp at triple the cost = 75 sp, vs 25sp +25 sp max = 50sp.)
The old system made Wall of Fire much more expensive than that: 25 base*3 Maximize*2 Empower*1.5 Extend = 225 spell points. Currently, casting Wall of Fire with the same metamagics costs 75 spell points. The difference is quite significant, which is why it became so damn good in Module 5.

Now with the new system at least DBF is somewhat closer to wall of fire. (50sp vs 65sp)
It's true that Module 5 made nuking much better than it used to be, which was a good thing, but it also made Wall of Fire too good.

tomfar72
05-15-2010, 02:44 PM
Do you have an example of how Radiant Servant contributes to that objective?

Do I have an example of how adding 75% to all your heals lets you choose between overhealing with Heal or using a less expensive Cure spell that gets the job done at less cost allows clerics to police their SP usage? No, I guess I don't.

Zombiekenny
05-15-2010, 03:06 PM
Do I have an example of how adding 75% to all your heals lets you choose between overhealing with Heal or using a less expensive Cure spell that gets the job done at less cost allows clerics to police their SP usage? No, I guess I don't.

Reasonably certain that, even with overhealing, mass heal is still more SP efficient. Haven't done the math with the RS changes, but the difference should still be there. As long as it is, in a raid situation where you can generally predict needed healing with a good degree of certainty, mass heal will be better, which makes so this PrE is mostly wasted in these situations. The one exception to this is a warforged barbarian without a lot of healing amp... yeah, lets make a PrE just to make so this one class/race can get healed to full in one spell...

Basically, I would like to see a cost reduction much more than a boost to heal amount.

Nezichiend
05-15-2010, 03:14 PM
When I heal with no lag, I let people drop to 50%, hit cure mod mass. People are then at full. With the change it will make me even use cure light mass. Do not used this silly proposed change. My empower heal currently costs 10(base)-6(enhancements)-2(lorrik's necklace) = 2SP per cast. Really, decreasing ALL healing spell costs by 33% would be overpowered.

sephiroth1084
05-15-2010, 03:54 PM
Clerics get improved empower healing enhnacements - favored souls do not, resulting in far superior healing to sp ratio with mass cure spells. Im not sure on the exact numbers, but I think if you figure in the difference in SP vs what was saved using the enhancements, the difference is small.

Obviously both could still do it, and currently its possible a fvs is still better despite the enhancement loss. But after this pre comes into play? Clerics could surge ahead slighly in total healing ability on 1 mana bar despite the fact that bar is smaller, (using mass cures and empower healing with no other metas)
Okay, yeah, I was just confused by the way you phrases the bit that I quoted above.

tomfar72
05-15-2010, 04:07 PM
Reasonably certain that, even with overhealing, mass heal is still more SP efficient. Haven't done the math with the RS changes, but the difference should still be there. As long as it is, in a raid situation where you can generally predict needed healing with a good degree of certainty, mass heal will be better, which makes so this PrE is mostly wasted in these situations. The one exception to this is a warforged barbarian without a lot of healing amp... yeah, lets make a PrE just to make so this one class/race can get healed to full in one spell...

Basically, I would like to see a cost reduction much more than a boost to heal amount.

The problem is some people feel that healing should be a 2 button job. Just because you have Heal/Mass Heal should not render all your other healing spells useless. The efficiency of a spell is dependant on the situation in which it's cast. With the +75%, if using Mass Heal will just cause overhealing and a Mass Cure will pretty much top everyone off, the Mass Cure is more efficient as it does the same job for less SP. If you are planning on just using Heal/Mass Heal then the PRE is only going to add extra heals to those spells which will result in some overhealing. If you are willing to use the Cure spells you automaticly have, you may find that you can save a good amount of SP by choosing which spell will do the job the cheapest depending on the situation.

Now, I'll admit that I'm all for more options as a healer. I come from WoW, where healers get pidgeonholed into using certain spells depending on class. I played a Shaman, and for a cpl years in raids all I needed to do most of the time was cast Chain Heal. Was it effective? Yes. Was it efficient? Yes. Was it fun? Nope. WoW changed some other spells and added some others so that Shaman wouldn't be stuck pressing one button adnauseum, and healing became more fun.

The other reason I think they decided on a healing buff as opposed to a SP reduction is to further diferentiate between Clerics and FvS. FvS can cast longer due to larger SP pools and all they would be doing if they gave the PRE a SP reduction is trying to make Clerics more like FvS. As the PRE stands, Clerics will have the strongest heals available per lvl, whether it be Cure Ser, Cure Crit, Mass Cure, Heal, or Mass Heal. FvS can just cast their most powerful heal all the time because they have the SP for it. Clerics are more the thinking man's healer IMO and the PRE gives them more options as to what and when to cast to maximize their SP.

LunaCee
05-15-2010, 04:59 PM
Not to mention it gives clerics with a splash an offset so that the splash doesn't reduce their power to heal as much.

Angelus_dead
05-15-2010, 05:30 PM
With the +75%, if using Mass Heal will just cause overhealing and a Mass Cure will pretty much top everyone off, the Mass Cure is more efficient as it does the same job for less SP.
But that won't happen: the numbers just don't lead to that result. That's why you were asked to give an example of how it might happen. You assert that one exists, but that is unconvincing.


Now, I'll admit that I'm all for more options as a healer. I come from WoW, where healers get pidgeonholed into using certain spells depending on class.
WOW is (currently) using an underlying design of each healer class having three primary choices of healing spell: Big, Quick, or Efficient. The player must make a tradeoff according to the situation of which one will cover the healing needs while conserving the most mana.

But DDO does not have a divide between the large and efficient heal: Mass Heal wins both ways, and the current plan for Radiant Servant doesn't change that.


As the PRE stands, Clerics will have the strongest heals available per lvl, whether it be Cure Ser, Cure Crit, Mass Cure, Heal, or Mass Heal.
Yes, but that is hardly ever beneficial.


Clerics are more the thinking man's healer IMO and the PRE gives them more options as to what and when to cast to maximize their SP.
Once again, if you get into specific examples you'll see that's not the case.

Slowe
05-15-2010, 05:46 PM
25% increase in healing will be useful regardless, as there are many situations where we don't overheal, but since there are many situations where we do, to really make this shine, tier 3 should have a mechanic that puts overhealing to good use - grants x% of overhealing as temp hit points or such.

Combat_Wombat
05-15-2010, 05:57 PM
Considered just using a lower level cure like cure mod instead of cure serious to save sp and the extra 25% would bring the amount it heals up to what you want? I know complicated but I think its worth exploring....

Angelus_dead
05-15-2010, 06:00 PM
tier 3 should have a mechanic that puts overhealing to good use - grants x% of overhealing as temp hit points or such.
Yes, that has been a fairly common suggestion, and it certainly would prevent much of the problem of overhealing. However the developers have given no indication that they're considering things on that line.

Artos_Fabril
05-15-2010, 06:50 PM
But DDO does not have a divide between the large and efficient heal: Mass Heal wins both ways, and the current plan for Radiant Servant doesn't change that.
Radiant Servant II is available 5 levels before Mass Heal, so for at least 5 levels, it will make your empowered group heals more effective than they would be otherwise. Perhaps Radiant Servant III will give you an SP reduction to empower healing, since at Clr18 you will be using Heal/Mass Heal for healing in virtually all cases. If that turns out not to be the case, and the benefit it ends up providing is not as good or better than a straight SP reduction, then this becomes a concern. At that point you would be able to point to the PrE as another piece of evidence supporting your claim that the Devs don't play the game the way players play. Until then, I think you might be over reacting.

Also, if Empower Healing and the RS2 boost to it affect Positive Energy Aura and Positive Energy Burst with no additional SP cost (as it and other metamagics do for the Jorasco Dragonmarks), you see an additional real benefit (though not a terribly significant one)

Artos_Fabril
05-15-2010, 06:58 PM
Considered just using a lower level cure like cure mod instead of cure serious to save sp and the extra 25% would bring the amount it heals up to what you want? I know complicated but I think its worth exploring....While I understand your point, 1.75*(4d8+20) for 47SP versus 150 for 50SP is a losing proposition, and because Heal/Mass Heal is a greater base heal, all other +% effects (Cleric Devotion enhancement line and devotion/potency, for example) give them a greater benefit. The only time Mass CSW would come out ahead of Mass Heal would be if you needed a moderate, fast heal and a big, slow heal won't do.

The benefit comes the 5 levels between when you get RS2 and Mass Heal, where you don't have that option for group healing. And then if RS3 provides an applicable benefit at 18, you only suffer one level of relative uselessness of the ability, assuming it doesn't affect other healing abilities in any meaningful way, which is not something that has been proven, or even demonstrated mathematically.

sephiroth1084
05-15-2010, 07:24 PM
25% increase in healing will be useful regardless, as there are many situations where we don't overheal, but since there are many situations where we do, to really make this shine, tier 3 should have a mechanic that puts overhealing to good use - grants x% of overhealing as temp hit points or such.
While I like this idea, I feel like it could be problematic for game balance, though if the temp HP don't stack beyond one application then that may be alright. Still, depending upon how much of the over-healing converts to temp HP, we may see a slight de-emphasis upon maxing HP, as it would close the gap between the high HP crowd and the lower HP crowd; however, not enough to make those 8 Con wizards seem like a decent choice. :rolleyes:

tomfar72
05-15-2010, 07:50 PM
But that won't happen: the numbers just don't lead to that result. That's why you were asked to give an example of how it might happen. You assert that one exists, but that is unconvincing.


WOW is (currently) using an underlying design of each healer class having three primary choices of healing spell: Big, Quick, or Efficient. The player must make a tradeoff according to the situation of which one will cover the healing needs while conserving the most mana.

But DDO does not have a divide between the large and efficient heal: Mass Heal wins both ways, and the current plan for Radiant Servant doesn't change that.


Yes, but that is hardly ever beneficial.


Once again, if you get into specific examples you'll see that's not the case.

You keep asking for specific examples yet the only example you want to offer is Heal/Mass heal is better in all situations than any other heal. You then complain about the amount of overheal ascociated with those spells and that the new PRE is going to make it worse. There are times now, before the PRE is introduced, that a Mass Cure can top everyone off as opposed to the more expensive(and slower) Mass Heal. You keep going on that Mass Heal is the largest AND most efficient heal, which is true IF most of that healing isn't wasted in overhealing. You can't get any more than full health currently. Even if Mass Heal healed the whole group for 3000 a pop, it would not be the most efficient heal if everyone was only down 200 health.

The same goes for mobs, you can't get more dead than dead.(Undead notwithstanding..lol) Polar Ray and Magic Missile are on 2 opposite ends of the spectrum. Polar Ray is awesome and MM sucks, right? Which is better when the mob you're fighting is down to 20 health? MM would kill the mob just as well as Polar Ray, for alot less SP. Does this mean that MM is more efficient than Polar Ray? Of course not, but in this situation it is.

All I'm saying is the shear power of Heal/Mass Heal is not always needed and sometimes a lower spell will do the job for less SP. The extra 25% is just gravy on top of that. Another thing to keep in mind is that while endgame is important, most clerics start at lvl 1.(or 4) The extra 25% to all healing spells will definately help the lvling process. Also, last I checked they have not announced the third tier of the PRE. Perhaps they will introduce something to address the overhealing of Heal/Mass Heal or reduce the SP cost. If you think about it, T3 is where something like that belongs as making Heal/Mass Heal more efficient SHOULD require 18 lvls of cleric as it could be extremely powerful.

Borror0
05-15-2010, 08:11 PM
You keep asking for specific examples yet the only example you want to offer is Heal/Mass heal is better in all situations than any other heal.
He does not feel that your claims are worth the time investment required to refute them, and just brushes them away as erroneous. He can get away with that because he has accumulated enough credibility so far. You, however, do not have that luxury and, if you want to prove him wrong, you're going to have to take out a calculator.

Polar Ray is awesome and MM sucks, right? Which is better when the mob you're fighting is down to 20 health? MM would kill the mob just as well as Polar Ray, for alot less SP. Does this mean that MM is more efficient than Polar Ray? Of course not, but in this situation it is.
Abilities that become useful only once in a blue moon are not useful most of the time.

bobbryan2
05-15-2010, 08:14 PM
To end 'over-heal' waste, use other spells then Heal and Mass Heal.

:rolleyes:

RS will allow the CLR to more effectively use lesser Cure spells to be more effective.

Yes... to end over-heal waste you should use less efficient healing.

I like the way you're thinking there!

bobbryan2
05-15-2010, 08:17 PM
They could also go a different route.

Give a percentage of over-healed hit points and turn them into temporary hit points up to a certain level (say 100 hp).

That would have the added bonus of giving a larger bonus to lower hit point characters than big hit point characters, but it would mean that in mass healing situations everyone basically has 100 (or whatever) hit points more... which I'm not sure the devs would get behind.

They could also give a smaller percentage, say 10% of overheal turned into temporary hit points, so that it would be horribly inefficient... but at least you're getting some use out of the over heal.

Angelus_dead
05-15-2010, 08:24 PM
They could also go a different route.

Give a percentage of over-healed hit points and turn them into temporary hit points up to a certain level (say 100 hp).
Or refund some of the spellpoints there was overheal... like 50% of the wasted mana comes back to you.

sephiroth1084
05-15-2010, 08:25 PM
You keep asking for specific examples yet the only example you want to offer is Heal/Mass heal is better in all situations than any other heal. You then complain about the amount of overheal ascociated with those spells and that the new PRE is going to make it worse. There are times now, before the PRE is introduced, that a Mass Cure can top everyone off as opposed to the more expensive(and slower) Mass Heal. You keep going on that Mass Heal is the largest AND most efficient heal, which is true IF most of that healing isn't wasted in overhealing. You can't get any more than full health currently. Even if Mass Heal healed the whole group for 3000 a pop, it would not be the most efficient heal if everyone was only down 200 health.

The same goes for mobs, you can't get more dead than dead.(Undead notwithstanding..lol) Polar Ray and Magic Missile are on 2 opposite ends of the spectrum. Polar Ray is awesome and MM sucks, right? Which is better when the mob you're fighting is down to 20 health? MM would kill the mob just as well as Polar Ray, for alot less SP. Does this mean that MM is more efficient than Polar Ray? Of course not, but in this situation it is.

All I'm saying is the shear power of Heal/Mass Heal is not always needed and sometimes a lower spell will do the job for less SP. The extra 25% is just gravy on top of that. Another thing to keep in mind is that while endgame is important, most clerics start at lvl 1.(or 4) The extra 25% to all healing spells will definately help the lvling process. Also, last I checked they have not announced the third tier of the PRE. Perhaps they will introduce something to address the overhealing of Heal/Mass Heal or reduce the SP cost. If you think about it, T3 is where something like that belongs as making Heal/Mass Heal more efficient SHOULD require 18 lvls of cleric as it could be extremely powerful.

The problem is that lower-level heal spells cost about the same amount as Heal/Mass Heal, while providing much lower healing. Is it worth spending 5 points less for a mass cure spell for 100 points or more in less healing?

sephiroth1084
05-15-2010, 08:29 PM
It would be really nice if Radiant Servant offered some discount to Maximizing cure spells. That might actually be a much better effect, and corresponds somewhat to the abilities of the PnP counterpart, which first grants Empower for free on Healing Domain spells you cast, then Maximize for free instead, and finally both Empower and Maximize.

Obviously, this shouldn't be boosting Blade Barrier, as Radiant Servant is all about healing, so perhaps it could be worded/programmed as a discount when using Maximize only with Cure spells? Maybe 3 points per rank of Radiant Servant?

sephiroth1084
05-15-2010, 08:33 PM
Or refund some of the spellpoints there was overheal... like 50% of the wasted mana comes back to you.
That seems exceedingly difficult to deal with: if you Mass Heal a group of 12 for 300 HP each, and 1/3 of the group doesn't get topped off, 1/3 just barely gets boosted back to full HP, and 1/3 takes an additional 50 SP, how would that translate to mana back? Would we see clerics requesting someone with low HP stand near the melees in such situations just to generate mana back?

Borror0
05-15-2010, 08:35 PM
It would be really nice if Radiant Servant offered some discount to Maximizing cure spells. That might actually be a much better effect, and corresponds somewhat to the abilities of the PnP counterpart, which first grants Empower for free on Healing Domain spells you cast, then Maximize for free instead, and finally both Empower and Maximize.
Also, that would make healing spells other than Heal and Mass Heal become attractive spell choice. Maybe.

Sharzade
05-15-2010, 10:15 PM
Yea for things like the heal or mass heal spell, a +75% in most cases would be wasted. But keep in mind the much faster cure light/mod/etc mass will generally not fill most endgame targets up to full, so it will greatly increase the efficiency on these spells.

I think a decked out cleric alternating mass cures would end up with similar healing power and efficiency to a FvS using mass heal, but do it without the bigger risk of losing someone due to the very slow cast time.

Too early to say for sure tell we play with it, but looks like a sweet PRE to me, as is.

Pretty much agree; I'm looking forward to redoing my Cleric to be a Radiant Servant, and am happy that spells like Mass Cure spells will get a boost to how much they heal. I'm not crazy about getting a Healing spell-point discount and diminishing that healing boost. This PRE might be quite divine in Epic content at times when damage is fierce. :D

Sharz
;) :p :)

Nezichiend
05-15-2010, 10:40 PM
Which costs less spell points, cure critical mass or mass heal?
Cure critical mass.

Which will get everyone up to full health?
Both.

Which is a better option?
Cure critical mass.

"Hey, but Nezichiend, what if your cure crit mass doesn't do enough to top people off?!"
Well little child, it does in almost all situations. Noxious embers for 1:20 minutes a day means free maximize. For 3 other minutes I can use Eardweller which is +50%.


There is 1 problem with mass heal, but it has 2 different implications
It is slow. It is so slow that you MUST quicken it, meaning you must use MORE sp to use it. I barely use quicken on my healer unless I know that I have enough sp or people take damage too quickly.
Also if you let people get too low and you mass heal people may die by the time it goes off, which means you must hit it EARLY. Now if you hit it early, people have more hitpoints. Then why do you use mass heal at all? Why not use a mass cure?

Halock
05-16-2010, 12:25 AM
The problem is that lower-level heal spells cost about the same amount as Heal/Mass Heal, while providing much lower healing. Is it worth spending 5 points less for a mass cure spell for 100 points or more in less healing?

Crux of the issue right here, well said.

Slowe
05-16-2010, 02:55 AM
Which costs less spell points, cure critical mass or mass heal?
Cure critical mass.

Which will get everyone up to full health?
Both.

Which is a better option?
Cure critical mass.

Cure Critical Mass doesn't heal as well as Mass Heal, even Maximized, and for it to top people off you have to cast it when they're fairly high on hit points, and thus cast it more often. I still don't see how it beats Mass Heal in efficiency, unless we're talking about situations where speed of healing is much more important than healing power, or you're playing with very very squishy melees. Not to mention that not every Cleric has Noxious Embers or the Eardweller, the lack of which will make CCM even less efficient.

Angelus_dead
05-16-2010, 04:21 AM
Which costs less spell points, cure critical mass or mass heal?
Cure critical mass.
Nope. MCCW costs more, because it has Maximize applied to it. Although technically people can use MCCW without Maximize, that would be inadvisable because it sacrifices hp/sp efficiency.


Which will get everyone up to full health?
Both.
That's only true if the MCCW was Maximized, as otherwise it would be so small it probably wouldn't get there.


"Hey, but Nezichiend, what if your cure crit mass doesn't do enough to top people off?!"
Well little child, it does in almost all situations. Noxious embers for 1:20 minutes a day means free maximize.
Do you happen to know why Noxious Embers lasts for 5x20 instead of 3x4?

Laliat and Velah and heck, even Arraetrikos and Aspect of Cunning laugh at the 1:20 minutes. If you're only talking about short fights then why talk about them at all?

Angelus_dead
05-16-2010, 04:34 AM
Cure Critical Mass doesn't heal as well as Mass Heal, even Maximized, and for it to top people off you have to cast it when they're fairly high on hit points, and thus cast it more often.
Yes. To be precise about it (assuming great gear but no brief clickies like Eardweller), MMCCW is 283 hp for 70 sp while QMH is 739 hp for 64 sp.

Nezichiend
05-16-2010, 11:16 AM
Yes. To be precise about it (assuming great gear but no brief clickies like Eardweller), MMCCW is 283 hp for 70 sp while QMH is 739 hp for 64 sp.

If by QMH you mean quicken mass heal, how does yours do 739hp? Mine with no healing amp (*1.0) and EARDWELLER only does 648.