Hiding from heals

[EZ_Saevan JNoir]

From: www.mobhunter.com/SiteCha...=338161922

"Nerfed: Rogue Lifespan

Remember the seemingly insignificant infobit (on carebear servers, at least) that said going invis will take you off a player's targeting? Well, guess what happens when a cleric is casting a heal on a rogue and that rogue uses evade? That's right--dead rogue, because the healer will lose target. The way around this is for the cleric to have see invis up. Rogues, start buying Bracers of the Hidden for your healers."


Does anyone know if this is true? It wasn't supposed to happen this way, ie. the spell was supposed to resolve anyway, if it was started before the hide/evade. Anyone checked this yet?


Saevan J'Noir
Wrath of Innoruuk

[EZ_Cylant]

1)When someone evades, they don't really go invisible... it only looks that way from your client.
2)If someone is already casting on you.. and you lose targeting.. you still finish the spell.

That was on an eq news site? Sort of makes me laugh that people post something like that without testing it.

[EZ_Kattria Minx]

You can still be targeted if you are in group anyway.

And the inability to target an invis person not in your party has been in the game before this patch. I know as I was up in Hate the night before the patch and I'd hide and ask for a buff outside my group and I'd forget that they couldn't target me until they sent a tell saying so.

[EZ_Atnas the Rogue]

Kattira, this is about losing targeting when hiding

[EZ_Saevan JNoir]

Tested it last night. Watched for casting from the cleric, hid (and she did lose target), was healed anyway. No problem. Saevan J'Noir
Wrath of Innoruuk

[EZ_Adria]

Even if the cleric did lose target, once a spell is started, it will land unless you are out of range or the caster is interrupted. Same is true for nukes, as well.

[EZ_Vermintide]

I still think VI dropped the ball with this ability.

Instead of losing targeting being a part of hide and invis, it should have been a part of the evade ability.

So, like evade only works on the mob you hae targeted, only the player you have targeted when you hit hide should lose target lock on you.

And of course, I think only rogues should have been able to do this anyway. This feels like an evade effect, not an invis effect.

[EZ_Cylant]

Well.. if you can't see someone.. dosn't it make sense that you can't stab them or focus a large ammount of healing/harming energy on their exact location?

[EZ_Kattria Minx]

Yeah, I know that Santa... but if the cleric already started casting on you, the heal will land. And as far as being able to target you while hidden, that's not a problem either as group members can always target each other as long as they are in the same zone, hidden or not.

[Aidden]

Hiding drops target...
Evading does not...

Go figure.. sounds like it was thought through to me...
And before anyone asks, yes i have tested both numerous times

[EZ_Zulian]

Actually, I think that's for the best.
You evade from NPCs - They don't follow rules anyways.
You hide from PCs - Those are the spells you want to avoid. If evading caused people to loose targeting, you would only annoy your clerics, it wouldn't do any good in PvP. "I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information." -- Calvin & Hobbes by Bill Watterson

[Aidden]

I might not of directed my sarcasm clearly enough.
I think this change was perfect.
I also think they thought it through enough to consider the effects of evade againts the change.

Im confused why people are complaining.
The only people who have the slightest right to complain regarding this change are PvP Casters...
and quite honestly, in my limited PvP in EQ, ill take what ever advantage i can get as a Rogue againts casting classes.

[EZ_Zulian]

Bah, I thought you were being sarcastic when you said you thought it was thought through.
Anyways, there's still people above complaining, so hah :P "I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information." -- Calvin & Hobbes by Bill Watterson

[EZ_Kohath Mobhunter]

Hey guys. It sounds like I should change the word "evade" in the story to "hide", and that would make it accurate. Is that correct?


Also, Clyant said:

"That was on an eq news site? Sort of makes me laugh that people post something like that without testing it."

We do our best. We're just doing the site for fun. We noticed lots of news that wasn't being covered on other EQ news sites, and decided to cover it ourselves.

And besides, this story was posted at 10 AM on the day after the servers came back up. If we waited until everyone knew exactly how everything works, it wouldn't be news anymore.

If any of you rogues wants to help us get the news faster and more accurate, email me: kohath@mobhunter.com

Kohath
www.mobhunter.com/

[Aidden]

If your asking for my opinion, then I would have written the story saying that "The new change to hiding and removing you as a target May effect Sneak hide. We will get back to you asap, with results of testing.

Im sure the Safehouse isnt the only place were people read stories like this and freak out that Verant was running around with the nurf stick again.

If you want my honest opinion, when I read your story, i assumed you were jsut another reactionary site out to slam verant, and henceforth your URL was forgotten from my mind. Of course on the flip side of the coin, I may not be the target market your site is looking for, in which case my opinion is neither needed, or considered...

[EZ_Kohath Mobhunter]

The opinion of a Safehouse webmaster will always matter Aidden.

A couple of things though:

1. Verant DID nerf stuff. Ask the mages.

2. It's hard to be responsible for people who tend to "freak out" AND be responsible for every "reactionary site out to slam Verant" that came and went in the past AND write stuff that's up-to-date and interesting to read. So we just try to do the 3rd one.

3. We weren't going to test it. We aren't equipped to do that. It was based on actual observations from an actual raid though.

4. It IS a genuine problem. When you cast a heal, and a rogue hides, targetting is lost. Sure, the spell can still land and heal the rogue -- but does the cleric know that?

In the same patch, the cleric got a new ability to cancel a heal by ducking. What are the odds the cleric will see the rogue target disappear, then cancel the spell to go heal someone else? Pretty high until they know better.

Our site can help them learn. What percentage of clerics regularly read the Safehouse? (Ok, a lot more than read Mobhunter, but we're new.)

And having the cleric see invis is clearly the right answer anyway.


After all, we COULD be reporting about the new heal and buff station that a_small_guild is setting up next Saturday on a_server_you_don't_play_on.

All that said, we'll try to do better.

Kohath
www.mobhunter.com

[EZ_Shaderick]

Okay. This is nonsense, fer one very simple reason:

EVADE DOES NOT BREAK TARGETTING.

I tested this the other evening. I had a good cleric buddy target me while fighting a forest giant in Burning woods. Giant turns and takes a swat at me. I evade. Giant turns back to tank. Cleric reports "You're still targetted".

It doesn't get much more clearcut than that.

If a rogue actually HIDES, it'll break targetting, and mess up the cleric if he hasn't already started his heal. But if a rogue HIDES, it means that, 99.995% of the time, he's not involved in a fight, so the cleric can take the time to target him again and cast the heal. *shrug*

[Yalum]

So you're the Matt Drudge of Everquest journalism, huh? You know my roomate's bartender swears that he heard that Absor took over because Abashi was arrested for crack possesion and sent to rehab.

[EZ_Kohath Mobhunter]

Thanks Shaderick. I corrected the story over the weekend based on the information from this discussion.

We're sorry for the trouble that the story's imprecision caused, if any.

Kohath
"The Matt Drudge of Everquest Journalism"
www.mobhunter.com