Results 1 to 10 of 14

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Player
    Menae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    239
    Character
    Menae Dulanis
    World
    Gilgamesh
    Main Class
    Conjurer Lv 70
    Essentially you can't use <t> and <tt> in a healing macro. If you put <t> first, any time you try to cast with an enemy targeted the spell will heal you. If you put <tt> first, any time you try to cast with an ally targeted it will try to heal whatever they are targetting; if that's an ally the spell will heal them, but if it's an enemy the spell will heal you.
    (0)

  2. #2
    Player
    kayuwoody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    88
    Character
    Kayu Boo
    World
    Tonberry
    Main Class
    Gladiator Lv 50
    Quote Originally Posted by Menae View Post
    Essentially you can't use <t> and <tt> in a healing macro. If you put <t> first, any time you try to cast with an enemy targeted the spell will heal you. If you put <tt> first, any time you try to cast with an ally targeted it will try to heal whatever they are targetting; if that's an ally the spell will heal them, but if it's an enemy the spell will heal you.
    I'll second that. Experimenting with <t> and <tt> always led to tears.
    What I do now is have macro set up to heal <mo> then <f>. I focus the tank I'm assigned to, keep bosses targetted, heal party by mouseover on party frames. Works as expected this way.
    (0)

  3. #3
    Player
    GiaoCodex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4
    Character
    Ratuni Loreseeker
    World
    Coeurl
    Main Class
    Conjurer Lv 60
    Yes I understand the use of <t> but the erroneous healing still occurs when I have the tank targeted in those cases, I dont have enemies targeted.

    I like the recommendation of the <f>, and will try editing my macros to remove <t> but still doesnt address the healing miss that I see especially when no movement changes occur and one heal hits me and one hits the tank as intended in a chain of cure spells.

    I still think there is a fundamental bug at play here.
    (0)