Why does targeting affect Eldritch Blast (Cone), Dragon Breath, and the like?

[Visik]

EB Cone and Dragon Breath should completely ignore targeting and depend ONLY on facing. (There are probably others with the same issue.)

Ironically, there's no positive effect of targeting, only a negative one: If you have something targeted that isn't in the area of effect, you can't make the attack.. at all. That completely ignores the realities of these type of attacks as well as of targeting.

It's not uncommon to target a mob just to track its HP or things of the sort. In fact, in combat it's often harder to NOT have something targeted than to do so. And for attacks for which targeting should make no difference (like cone attacks), there's no reason for it to prevent the attack. And it can be hard to untarget everything when this occurs. It's particularly problematic if the targeted mob is up close, while there are a host of others further away but in the AoE of the attack (were you allowed to make it).

Yes, a huge fraction of attacks in DDO are and should be affected by targeting; these are not among them.

 

[Kessaran]

Yes, it's treated as a spell for some things.. and not for others. It's a warlock's basic attack, like swinging a sword is for a fighter. If your greatsword would fail to swing because a targeted enemy was offside, I think you'd appreciate this issue more.

Ok but your argument is completely invalid because it is still a spell. The only thing different about it compared to other spells is it's not affected by metamagics or antimagic. In every other way it is treated as a spell, so of course it has to abide by the same targeting rules as all the other spells in the game. You might not like that and you're more than entitled to have that opinion but that's how eldritch blasting has worked since release. You're using a frontal AoE version of it, just quit targeting and mouse look while you are firing? I'm not entirely sure how you move around while eldritch blasting without mouse-looking anyway meaning the only thing you'd need to change is quit tab targeting mobs.

 

[Sympl]

You're comparing it to spellcasting: it isn't. It's more like if your sword would fail to swing if your primary target weren't in the swing zone, regardless of whether you had other targets there.

EB is unlike anything else in the game. But it's definitely not like spellcasting.

Yes, it's treated as a spell for some things.. and not for others. It's a warlock's basic attack, like swinging a sword is for a fighter. If your greatsword would fail to swing because a targeted enemy was offside, I think you'd appreciate this issue more.

I have trouble swinging my sword at enemies outside of my sword's range, so yes.....::

Once again. Semantics. It isn't a spell. You are correct. There is noting else like it in the game. Basically, it's a spell-like ability that has it's own set of restrictions. But as an SLA, it is inherently Spell-like. And functions as such in this matter.

It would seem we're basically at an impasse. No hard feelings and all - at least on my end. I just disagree and I'm running out of things to say. The discussion has been a valuable time-filler for me though, so thanks. Loot something good on my behalf when the games come back up! ::bows and exits thread::

 

[Visik]

Ok but your argument is completely invalid because it is still a spell. The only thing different about it compared to other spells is it's not affected by metamagics or antimagic. In every other way it is treated as a spell, so of course it has to abide by the same targeting rules as all the other spells in the game. You might not like that and you're more than entitled to have that opinion but that's how eldritch blasting has worked since release. You're using a frontal AoE version of it, just quit targeting and mouse look while you are firing? I'm not entirely sure how you move around while eldritch blasting without mouse-looking anyway meaning the only thing you'd need to change is quit tab targeting mobs.

If it says it's, "Treated as a spell," that's vastly different from, "It's a spell." And it specifies in what WAYS it's treated as a spell. And as I already noted, it's not everything, or Metamagics would work on it.

 

[droid327]

It's a PBAOE. There is precedent, even among true spells, of those not needing a target in range...I think NEB, for one, always goes off no matter where your target is

 

[kmoustakas]

EB Cone and Dragon Breath should completely ignore targeting and depend ONLY on facing. (There are probably others with the same issue.)

Ironically, there's no positive effect of targeting, only a negative one: If you have something targeted that isn't in the area of effect, you can't make the attack.. at all. That completely ignores the realities of these type of attacks as well as of targeting.

It's not uncommon to target a mob just to track its HP or things of the sort. In fact, in combat it's often harder to NOT have something targeted than to do so. And for attacks for which targeting should make no difference (like cone attacks), there's no reason for it to prevent the attack. And it can be hard to untarget everything when this occurs. It's particularly problematic if the targeted mob is up close, while there are a host of others further away but in the AoE of the attack (were you allowed to make it).

Yes, a huge fraction of attacks in DDO are and should be affected by targeting; these are not among them.

I have horrible issues whenever I play my bard with shout, greater shout and horn of thunder from the exact same problems. "You are not facing x" I don't wanna face X you idiot the mob ran over my mouse cursor.

 

[GrizzlyOso]

You are not facing is horrible gameplay , call it a bug or not, and should be addressed.

Sure there are workarounds , and I do them (self select or esc unselect) - but it would definitely be better to not do them.

 

[Visik]

There are so many people arguing that one should just not target mobs (or untarget mobs), ignoring that that's entirely counter to all the habits we have from playing other builds, as well as that UNtargeting mobs is something we almost never have to do otherwise.

In fact, the other spells that used to have similar problems have been fixed, best I can recall. Granted, they weren't cone-shaped AoEs. But some self-targeted spells used to not go off if you had a mob targeted, too. And to fix problems with self-heal accidentally targeting undead mobs, they even added an Option so you could pick your priority for Cure-type spells.

In short, the precedent for making this fix already exists.

 

[Mokune]

I feel your pain. "YOU ARE NOT FACING" is the most egregious and aggravating part of playing a caster. However, there are more than a handful of spells, both arcane and divine, that do not rely on the caster to be facing the target in order to be cast. So, there is 100% a mechanic already being applied to some spells that do no trigger this.

But, as soon as a mob aggros, the computer paths it so it is running to a spot behind you and thinks it is already there even if you cast the spell when the mob is in front of you. If it is soft-targeted/auto-targeted the computer already thinks it's behind you a lot of the time.

Kind of the same way that no matter how fast your run speed is, the mob chasing you is practically faster and landing hits because it is attacking where you were (or where the computer thought you were when it attacked).

Simply put, where you see your character at on screen relative to the mobs is not necessarily where the mobs (or you) actually are from the POV of the computer.

Almost as if there is some shady initiative roll happening that always favors the mob.

Having to do tricksy targeting or non-targeting crap may be a work around but what we need is EVERY Cone type Spell or Eldritch Blast Wave or Cone Shape to ALWAYS fire in the direction the character is facing and never rely on whatever is targeted in the focus orb.

 

[rabidfox]

I self-target when using cone, but it's quite annoying when I accidently wind up targeting something in the heat of battle and it stops my attack cycle. I also find the wind up time on blasts to be too long; if I try to weave in a spell (or if the attack cycle is interrupted), it's can be a DPS loss vs just blasting away (compared to weapon attacks where weaving in a cast feels better to me). There's also the really slow travel times on the single target warlock blasts https://forums.ddo.com/index.php?threads/suggestion-improve-warlock-blast-tracking.7708/ I wouldn't mind seeing a pass all around on warlock blasts for QoL.

 

[Smokewolf]

EB Cone and Dragon Breath should completely ignore targeting and depend ONLY on facing. (There are probably others with the same issue.)

Ironically, there's no positive effect of targeting, only a negative one: If you have something targeted that isn't in the area of effect, you can't make the attack.. at all. That completely ignores the realities of these type of attacks as well as of targeting.

It's not uncommon to target a mob just to track its HP or things of the sort. In fact, in combat it's often harder to NOT have something targeted than to do so. And for attacks for which targeting should make no difference (like cone attacks), there's no reason for it to prevent the attack. And it can be hard to untarget everything when this occurs. It's particularly problematic if the targeted mob is up close, while there are a host of others further away but in the AoE of the attack (were you allowed to make it).

Yes, a huge fraction of attacks in DDO are and should be affected by targeting; these are not among them.

It's because its using very similar mechanics to what spells use. Thus if your target dies when blasting or casting, your going to hit nothing, while burning up your time and spellpoints. Personally, I've rather retain my spellpoints if there isn't a valid target. Unfortunately, the Dev's chose a system with the lowest overhead for performance, not practicality.

 

[Visik]

It's because its using very similar mechanics to what spells use. Thus if your target dies when blasting or casting, your going to hit nothing, while burning up your time and spellpoints. Personally, I've rather retain my spellpoints if there isn't a valid target. Unfortunately, the Dev's chose a system with the lowest overhead for performance, not practicality.

You completely misunderstand the problem. First, Eldritch Blast doesn't use spellpoints. Second, the issue isn't a dead target; the issue is that a live target is out of the cone area, and thus the cone does not proc at all.

 

[GrizzlyOso]

You completely misunderstand the problem. First, Eldritch Blast doesn't use spellpoints. Second, the issue isn't a dead target; the issue is that a live target is out of the cone area, and thus the cone does not proc at all.

Yeah seriously this, a dead target means you can cast no problem again. So wonky.

And this should apply to all spells, not just warlock , we have plenty of spell points now.

If target == behind and spell can cast without target, then cast it forward or at soft target

Just copy and paste that line , it’ll probably work.

 

[Smokewolf]

You completely misunderstand the problem. First, Eldritch Blast doesn't use spellpoints. Second, the issue isn't a dead target; the issue is that a live target is out of the cone area, and thus the cone does not proc at all.

No sh!t... was using "spells" as an EXAMPLE as they share a similar set of problems due to targeting.

 

[Smokewolf]

Yeah seriously this, a dead target means you can cast no problem again. So wonky.

And this should apply to all spells, not just warlock , we have plenty of spell points now.

If target == behind and spell can cast without target, then cast it forward or at soft target

Just copy and paste that line , it’ll probably work.

Wrong! Spells can lose their intended target mid-cast, and still end up costing the player. Happens all the time with both DPS and insta-kill spells, if someone 1-shots a mob your attempting to cast on. With SLA's it isn't too big on an issue as the base cost is fixed regardless of the metamagic used. However for non-SLS's the spell costs can easily reach 30 - 50+ per use. With Ruin and gRuin, it's almost 100 per cast. To have the spell fail due to the loss of target, and still have to pay the spell cost gets old really quickly.

The Warlock cone is similar if the fact that the player is again being penalized by a failure of targeting. Doesn't matter if the target is dead or simply outside of your casting arc, the effect is the same.

 

[seph1roth5]

Lot of pointless arguing over semantics and logic lol. The important thing is it's bad and there's no reason cones should work like that. How is kukan-do coded? Or bard songs? Make cones something like that where it doesn't matter where the target is.

 

[Mokune]

For the record, I have NEVER EVER, NOT ONE TIME gotten the "You are not Facing" message while using Greater Color Spray from the Feydark Illusionist or Deep Gnome trees.

 

[GrizzlyOso]

Wrong! Spells can lose their intended target mid-cast, and still end up costing the player. Happens all the time with both DPS and insta-kill spells, if someone 1-shots a mob your attempting to cast on. With SLA's it isn't too big on an issue as the base cost is fixed regardless of the metamagic used. However for non-SLS's the spell costs can easily reach 30 - 50+ per use. With Ruin and gRuin, it's almost 100 per cast. To have the spell fail due to the loss of target, and still have to pay the spell cost gets old really quickly.

The Warlock cone is similar if the fact that the player is again being penalized by a failure of targeting. Doesn't matter if the target is dead or simply outside of your casting arc, the effect is the same.

Spells not going off from a dead target doesnt make it *better* or your argument stronger.

Again aoes in that situation should just stil go off , either at the target point or where you’re soft targeting , whatever is easiest