Greetings, glorious testers!

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.

To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Crowd control should not be based on RNG

189101113

Comments

  • Weird that you didn't say "I haven't seen you provide any suggestions for alternate systems to replace RNG on hard CC" when you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is
    mmo design essays: http://beaushinkle.xyz/
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Weird that you didn't say "I haven't seen you provide any suggestions for alternate systems to replace RNG on hard CC" when you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is

    If you had any faith in your suggestion, you would have bought it up in discussion with me by now.
  • beaushinklebeaushinkle Member
    edited September 2021
    Noaani wrote: »
    Weird that you didn't say "I haven't seen you provide any suggestions for alternate systems to replace RNG on hard CC" when you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is

    If you had any faith in your suggestion, you would have bought it up in discussion with me by now.

    Yikes.

    In my original conversation in page 2 with Rae, I talk about giving CCs wind-up animations and then giving defender a way to actively resist these CCs with a defensive as one approach. I talk about this a little further with JamesSunderland on page 3.

    I've also consistently referenced how WoW scrapped %miss for %reduced duration for CCs. The Hardiness orc racial from 2006 used to read "Chance to resist Stun effects increased by an additional 25%.", but that was eventually changed to "Duration of Stun effects reduced by an additional 20%" in retail wow. Admittedly, this doesn't accomplish everything that RNG CC does. Namely, it lacks underdog factor. You and I talked about different ways that different games implement underdog factor at length.

    You haven't engaged with any of the math that I did a few posts up about how with ~1% chance to miss CC's, and if CC's aren't suppose to be deciding matches anyway, then they're probably not producing much underdog factor in the first place, so regardless, the devs are going to have to figure out where else the underdog factor is coming from. Once they figure that out, they can just turn that knob a bit more. It's not like all of the underdog factor in the game is coming from the RNG associated to CC's.
    mmo design essays: http://beaushinkle.xyz/
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Weird that you didn't say "I haven't seen you provide any suggestions for alternate systems to replace RNG on hard CC" when you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is

    If you had any faith in your suggestion, you would have bought it up in discussion with me by now.

    Yikes.

    In my original conversation in page 2 with Rae, I talk about giving CCs wind-up animations and then giving defender a way to actively resist these CCs with a defensive as one approach. I talk about this a little further with JamesSunderland on page 3.
    I assume by "wind-up" animations, you mean casting animations. Every spell or attack in an MMO should have one of these, and it should communicate what that spell or attack is about to do.

    Likewise, CC breaks are something that should simply exist as well.

    Casting animations, CC breaks and counters are a given, and do not perform the same task that RNG does on CC's. I'm not sure why you would bring these up here, or why you would assume they may not be present in the game (you would have to assume they wouldn't be present in order to point to them as an alternative to RNG on CC's).
    I've also consistently referenced how WoW scrapped %miss for %reduced duration for CCs. The Hardiness orc racial from 2006 used to read "Chance to resist Stun effects increased by an additional 25%.", but that was eventually changed to "Duration of Stun effects reduced by an additional 20%" in retail wow. Admittedly, this doesn't accomplish everything that RNG CC does. Namely, it lacks underdog factor. You and I talked about different ways that different games implement underdog factor at length.
    WoW still isn't a good game to bring in to this discussion - I've said that so many times and yet you keep bringing it in.

    And even if we did think Blizzard developers were anything other than trash (we do not think they are anything other than trash, generally speaking), you even say that it doesn't accomplish everything.

    In fact, I don't think you could list everything that an opposed roll on CC's would do for an MMO. Prove me wrong.
    You haven't engaged with any of the math that I did a few posts up about how with ~1% chance to miss CC's, and if CC's aren't suppose to be deciding matches anyway, then they're probably not producing much underdog factor in the first place, so regardless, the devs are going to have to figure out where else the underdog factor is coming from. Once they figure that out, they can just turn that knob a bit more. It's not like all of the underdog factor in the game is coming from the RNG associated to CC's.
    I haven't engaged with it because it is pointless.

    It is assuming a single flat miss chance, which would be horrid game design. Why would I engage with a made up scenario that you have devised in order to attempt to prove a point that you can't prove without fabricating scenarios?
  • bigepeenbigepeen Member
    edited September 2021
    Noaani wrote: »
    You keep basically saying "yeah, well, that's like... you're opinion man" when people say they want RNG, or when they think RNG will make the game better (and give examples of this).

    Thing is, that is also all you have to say no RNG - you just prefer it. Where your argument falls flat though, is you haven't provided any suggestions for alternate systems to replace RNG on hard CC - systems that accomplish everything that RNG would do.
    I'm really tired of you just asserting provably wrong stuff.

    This is also my issue with the poster in question.
  • Very interesting to see that the important RNG vs Non-RNG in Hard CC conversation is still alive and kicking, sadly, even with a lot of new pages, it seems that the conversation hasn't evolved a lot and became kinda stagnant...
    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • Very interesting to see that the important RNG vs Non-RNG in Hard CC conversation is still alive and kicking, sadly, even with a lot of new pages, it seems that the conversation hasn't evolved a lot and became kinda stagnant...

    Because it's not resolvable. People state opinions as facts, then when proven wrong, state that the other's position is just an opinion.

    It comes down to there being completely opposing opinions about whether rng should be involved in hard CCs. Those opinions are not likely to change no matter how many examples or logic is thrown at it about which system is better. So it's essentially a waste of time to argue details about it.
  • beaushinklebeaushinkle Member
    edited September 2021
    Noaani wrote: »
    WoW still isn't a good game to bring in to this discussion - I've said that so many times and yet you keep bringing it in.

    And even if we did think Blizzard developers were anything other than trash (we do not think they are anything other than trash, generally speaking), you even say that it doesn't accomplish everything.
    You just asserting things being true doesn't mean that they're true. WoW does a lot of things wrong, sure. That doesn't mean that it's fundamentally useless to use it as a reference for discussion. Maybe to facilitate conversation here a little bit. What do you think actually happens if you were to convert %miss into %duration reduction?
    Noaani wrote: »
    In fact, I don't think you could list everything that an opposed roll on CC's would do for an MMO. Prove me wrong.
    Is this a gotcha somehow?
    Noaani wrote: »
    I haven't engaged with it because it is pointless.

    It is assuming a single flat miss chance, which would be horrid game design. Why would I engage with a made up scenario that you have devised in order to attempt to prove a point that you can't prove without fabricating scenarios?
    When two characters start fighting, the miss chance is flat, right? Like, they're not changing their build / gear mid combat. So maybe for two particular combatants, it's 1/100. Maybe for two other ones it's 1/85. Pick whatever number you think is reasonable for whatever situation you'd like to analyze for a base case and I'll run some numbers. I'm just trying to figure out what's in your head.

    As for why you haven't engaged with it, that's the point of conversation, right? If you think I'm going down the wrong track and you ignore it, we don't get anywhere. But if you ask me to elaborate or ask me what I mean then I can expand and we can reach an understanding.

    As for "fabricating scenarios", the game isn't finished, all we have is discussing design. You're imagining a design where players can put points in "accuracy" and "dodge" right? After those points have been allocated, there's a miss%. If one player has tons of accuracy and the other player has no dodge, the miss% will be low. If one player has no accuracy and the other player has tons of dodge, the miss% will be high. I'm following your mental model so far, right?
    • Attacker puts many into accuracy. Defender puts few. What's the miss% for CC?
    • Attacker puts few points into accuracy. Defender puts few. What's the miss% for CC?
    • Attacker puts many points into accuracy. Defender puts many. What's the miss% for CC?
    • Attacker puts few points into accuracy. Defender puts many. What's the miss% for CC?

    I'm not asking for you to commit to designing the game or anything, and I'm not trying to create a trap or criticize your numbers. I'm just trying to figure out what you're imagining when you talk about the game in your head.

    We also know the TTK will be ~30-60 seconds. How many CC's do you think will be used by each player in this time? Ballpark.

    Once we know miss%, TTK and how many CC's we can use in that time, we can estimate how often we expect to see CC's get resisted in fights. That should give us an indication of how impactful all of this variance is.
    mmo design essays: http://beaushinkle.xyz/
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    I would rather have Miss Chance than Duration Deduction. You are locked in the pattern of requesting infallible CCs, whether those CCs are diminished or not you want every CC to land.

    In Vanilla WoW the Orc Ratial Trait was overpowered in PvP which is why it was changed in Retail. The alliance racials were better suited to PvE while the Horde was better suited to PvP.

    You can keep repeating that the change was a good change, it was only a good change because the WoW devs messed up the balance in the first instance. If the racials were balanced then I would always take Miss Chance over Duration deduction because being locked in any CC is not my preferred playstyle. Furthermore, I would still prefer an interrupt, a silence and a trinket so I have more control on whether I want to block a CC, accept a CC or break out of a CC.

    Edit: Spelling Mistakes
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • edited September 2021
    bigepeen wrote: »
    Because it's not resolvable. People state opinions as facts, then when proven wrong, state that the other's position is just an opinion.

    It comes down to there being completely opposing opinions about whether rng should be involved in hard CCs. Those opinions are not likely to change no matter how many examples or logic is thrown at it about which system is better. So it's essentially a waste of time to argue details about it.

    Yeah it is most likely not resolvable, but i still don't think: "it's essentially a waste of time to argue details about it." because in the end, no matter what, Intrepid will ultimately have to choose between the 2 systems, unless Steven have already decided it or if they go for a mid-term with both RNG and Non-RNG Hard CCs balancing then through other variables.
    This last option would either appease the majority or make the majority mad and would probably require a official poll. :D
    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • beaushinklebeaushinkle Member
    edited September 2021
    I don't think there's even that much of a conversation, despite all of the words I write.

    My position comes down to "I think that I would enjoy playing the game more if my CC's didn't have a chance to fail". Total subjective preference, and I fully respect other folks subjective preference of wanting to play with a random miss%. As long as the conversation stays there, there's not a lot to write about, actually. Certainly not enough to fill 33+ forum pages.

    Where I get willing to argue is when we start talking about whether or not it's necessary to include RNG CC in order to get game balance right, in order for the game to definitionally qualify as a MMORPG (what?), or in order for worse players to have a shot at winning.

    Those are all things that I think should be resolvable, so it's frustrating that it hasn't happened yet.

    edit: to be clear, I think I have resolved them, and Noaani is just incredibly stubborn.
    mmo design essays: http://beaushinkle.xyz/
  • Neurath wrote: »
    Furthermore, I would still prefer an interrupt, a silence and a trinket so I have more control on whether I want to block a CC, accept a CC or break out of a CC.

    I'm fine with this, and it makes for a way better system than rng CCs imo. I would also prefer abilities as well that give stun armor, which can either replace the trinkets or be used along with them.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    Really. First, we just have to test the design.
    Just because it's easy to fabricate scenarios you won't like doesn't mean you won't be OK with actual system.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Where I get willing to argue is when we start talking about whether or not it's necessary to include RNG CC in order to get game balance right, in order for the game to ddefinitively qualify as a MMORPG (what?), or in order for worse players to have a shot at winning.

    Those are all things that I think should be resolvable, so it's frustrating that it hasn't happened yet.
    You can argue all you want.
    RNG are an integral part of RPGs. That's why Ashes combat will always have RNG.
    Because Steven wants to put the RPG back into MMORPG.
    Doesn't matter whether you want to try to change the fundamental rules of RPG design simply because you prefer player twitch skills over RNG. Or because you think player twitch skills should win over character builds for hard ccs.
    There's nothing to argue.
    You wish things were different... but they aren't.
  • Dygz wrote: »
    Where I get willing to argue is when we start talking about whether or not it's necessary to include RNG CC in order to get game balance right, in order for the game to ddefinitively qualify as a MMORPG (what?), or in order for worse players to have a shot at winning.

    Those are all things that I think should be resolvable, so it's frustrating that it hasn't happened yet.
    You can argue all you want.
    RNG are an integral part of RPGs. That's why Ashes combat will always have RNG.
    Because Steven wants to put the RPG back into MMORPG.
    Doesn't matter whether you want to try to change the fundamental rules of RPG design simply because you prefer player twitch skills over RNG. Or because you think player twitch skills should win over character builds for hard ccs.
    There's nothing to argue.
    You wish things were different... but they aren't.
    Sure - I'll ask you the same question I asked Crow.

    Say that one day Steven decides on a whim to take miss% out of CC's. Does ashes cease to be a MMORPG? You might be tempted to say "they won't", but just humor me.
    mmo design essays: http://beaushinkle.xyz/
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    I'll ask you the same question I asked Crow.


    star-wars-admiral-ackbar.gif


    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • It is, admittedly, a trap, but only in the sense that I think that the position is ridiculous in the first place.

    If you want to claim, like Crow eventually did, that MMORPGs without RNG on CC's are subjectively worse RPGs (but still RPGs), in exactly the same way that baseball leagues with designated hitters are subjectively worse baseball leagues but still baseball leagues, then I won't even touch that. I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance!

    If you want to claim otherwise, I'd love to hear about it.
    mmo design essays: http://beaushinkle.xyz/
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Very interesting to see that the important RNG vs Non-RNG in Hard CC conversation is still alive and kicking, sadly, even with a lot of new pages, it seems that the conversation hasn't evolved a lot and became kinda stagnant...

    I'm still technically waiting on your opinion irt a proposed 'meet in the middle' btw. It got buried in the meanwhile so I'll just repaste it here.
    JustVine wrote: »

    Not that I really support this solution either but since you all have been pretty 'do or die' irt rng stun while offering no attempt to meet in the middle. So here is my attempt at pulling your sides half to the middle instead.

    What are your thoughts on a 'miss' being a partial fail rather than a full fail? That way the technical element of the action mode are the 'real' miss while you still get a 'partial things not going to plan' miss via the rng.

    The 'partial fail' could be designed one of two ways:

    It could be some portion of lower time limit. This means that you still have to react to the situation and possibly need to switch your next move on fail to be more optimal for damage or rotation. From the defenders side this is the more 'generous' and less technical option. It's simpler to do and balance on a technical level but might represent solvable design challenge to make it clear to both players whether or not you are experiencing a miss or hit.

    Or it could be some form of softer CC (e.g. the stun is now just a root or ability lock out or something that still feels consistent with the thematic to the move/class.) Now you as an attacker can 'plan' around having two 'strategies' ready one less optimal than the other depending on what abilities you have available and what your current advantage in the fight is. The defender otoh now has the opportunity to have their soft cc defenses come into play in a part of the fight that wouldn't otherwise happen. This makes the fight more dynamic and unpredictable since cc defenses are more linked to gear and can be switched up from fight to fight. But obviously requires a lot more balance considerations. But you also have less trouble with the animation problem that comes up in the other possible solution. (I am definitely strongly biased in preferring this approach. But they are probably both equally valid.)

    You also get the 'build' trade off of 'guaranteed cc time down but smaller than a 'miss' vs 'increasing miss chance' as possible route for designing gear.

    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
  • JustVine wrote: »
    Very interesting to see that the important RNG vs Non-RNG in Hard CC conversation is still alive and kicking, sadly, even with a lot of new pages, it seems that the conversation hasn't evolved a lot and became kinda stagnant...

    I'm still technically waiting on your opinion irt a proposed 'meet in the middle' btw. It got buried in the meanwhile so I'll just repaste it here.

    Sorry, i might have not paid attention to it because it was a reply to Crow and not me.
    JustVine wrote: »
    Not that I really support this solution either but since you all have been pretty 'do or die' irt rng stun while offering no attempt to meet in the middle. So here is my attempt at pulling your sides half to the middle instead.

    What are your thoughts on a 'miss' being a partial fail rather than a full fail? That way the technical element of the action mode are the 'real' miss while you still get a 'partial things not going to plan' miss via the rng.

    The 'partial fail' could be designed one of two ways:

    It could be some portion of lower time limit. This means that you still have to react to the situation and possibly need to switch your next move on fail to be more optimal for damage or rotation. From the defenders side this is the more 'generous' and less technical option. It's simpler to do and balance on a technical level but might represent solvable design challenge to make it clear to both players whether or not you are experiencing a miss or hit.

    Or it could be some form of softer CC (e.g. the stun is now just a root or ability lock out or something that still feels consistent with the thematic to the move/class.) Now you as an attacker can 'plan' around having two 'strategies' ready one less optimal than the other depending on what abilities you have available and what your current advantage in the fight is. The defender otoh now has the opportunity to have their soft cc defenses come into play in a part of the fight that wouldn't otherwise happen. This makes the fight more dynamic and unpredictable since cc defenses are more linked to gear and can be switched up from fight to fight. But obviously requires a lot more balance considerations. But you also have less trouble with the animation problem that comes up in the other possible solution. (I am definitely strongly biased in preferring this approach. But they are probably both equally valid.)

    You also get the 'build' trade off of 'guaranteed cc time down but smaller than a 'miss' vs 'increasing miss chance' as possible route for designing gear.

    It seems like a viable middle of the road possibility, even tho i've never seem implementation of such system i believe the first "partial fail" design mentioned would certainly work and be a viable option, removing the RNG of deciding a total fail or total success but deciding the possible duration of the CC.
    Btw do you believe the partial fail duration reduction should be static or have a range?
    (Example: minimun duration 20%-25% of the total CC time, maximun duration 80%-75% of the total CC time and the numbers in between).

    I'm less favorable of the second "partial fail" design as it seems less logical and kind of a counter intuitive mechanic that would require:
    1. Tooltip information on all Hard CC skills explaning about how if your CC miss its "partial fail" roll it will apply another unrelated softer CC
    2. A pre-defined CC Peacking order structure list, explaning what Soft CC a said Hard CC will become if it misses its "partial fail" roll.

    I can understand the logic of a root CC becoming a slow CC because of a buff explicitly saying it,
    but a stun becoming a root? A stun becoming a Silence/disarm? What would a knockdown/knockback become? What would a Sleep become? Just doesn't make a lot of sense for me.



    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • Magic ManMagic Man Member
    edited September 2021
    Dygz wrote: »
    Magic Man wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Magic Man wrote: »
    Nope, stun is hard CC.
    LMAO
    Yes. That was sarcasm.
    Alpha One had Stuns - which means there were hard ccs.

    😩Yes, I already said that. Again -

    Screen_Shot_2021-09-02_at_16.39.04.png
    Nope. You can't wiggle out with that quote.
    What you wrote is: "However, in this alpha, there was no 'hard' CCs."
    The Alpha One had Stuns and Stuns, by your own admission, are hard ccs.
    I dunno why you're trying to deny that.

    😩😩😩😩 I'm not trying to ''wiggle out with that quote''.... I knew some forum people had difficulties understanding but damn..That was Steven's direct reply to my question ''why do some abilities in alpha feel like hard CCs despite being tab targeted''. They are there purely for testing purposes. CCs are not finalized by any means.
    signature.png
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Sure - I'll ask you the same question I asked Crow.

    Say that one day Steven decides on a whim to take miss% out of CC's. Does ashes cease to be a MMORPG? You might be tempted to say "they won't", but just humor me.
    I'm saying the reason why he won't is because Steven wants to put the RPG back into MMORPG.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    Magic Man wrote: »
    That was Steven's direct reply to my question ''why do some abilities in alpha feel like hard CCs despite being tab targeted''. They are there purely for testing purposes. CCs are not finalized by any means.
    That doesn't matter.
    What you wrote is that the Alpha One did not have hard CCs. It did.
    Steven's quote doesn't change that. Steven's quote just says why there were hard CCs in Alpha One.
    That's it.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    When two characters start fighting, the miss chance is flat, right?
    Not necessarily.

    Both buffs and debuffs to hit chance or miss chance seem to me to be perfectly valid things to add to a game to increase depth.

    Which, incidentally, is the same reason chance to hit and reduction to duration can both exist at the same time.
  • Dygz wrote: »
    Sure - I'll ask you the same question I asked Crow.

    Say that one day Steven decides on a whim to take miss% out of CC's. Does ashes cease to be a MMORPG? You might be tempted to say "they won't", but just humor me.
    I'm saying the reason why he won't is because Steven wants to put the RPG back into MMORPG.

    Yeah, I hear that. Buf if he did, would it stop being a MMORPG?
    Noaani wrote: »
    When two characters start fighting, the miss chance is flat, right?
    Not necessarily.

    Both buffs and debuffs to hit chance or miss chance seem to me to be perfectly valid things to add to a game to increase depth.

    Which, incidentally, is the same reason chance to hit and reduction to duration can both exist at the same time.

    Sure. In the absence of those complicating factors, what sort of numbers are you envisioning for the bullet points I laid out?

    mmo design essays: http://beaushinkle.xyz/
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    Sure - I'll ask you the same question I asked Crow.

    Say that one day Steven decides on a whim to take miss% out of CC's. Does ashes cease to be a MMORPG? You might be tempted to say "they won't", but just humor me.
    I'm saying the reason why he won't is because Steven wants to put the RPG back into MMORPG.

    Yeah, I hear that. Buf if he did, would it stop being a MMORPG?
    Noaani wrote: »
    When two characters start fighting, the miss chance is flat, right?
    Not necessarily.

    Both buffs and debuffs to hit chance or miss chance seem to me to be perfectly valid things to add to a game to increase depth.

    Which, incidentally, is the same reason chance to hit and reduction to duration can both exist at the same time.

    Sure. In the absence of those complicating factors, what sort of numbers are you envisioning for the bullet points I laid out?

    Anywhere from 10% hit rate to 100% hit rate.

    I'm not willing to put numbers like that on anything because there are also factors like how easy it is to get CC breaks, how much reduction is possible to CC's via various means, how long CC's are in general, what kind of system is in place to prevent CC locking, etc.

    None of these factors are really able to be discussed or considered in isolation, and so I am not willing to consider them in isolation.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Yeah, I hear that. Buf if he did, would it stop being a MMORPG?
    I said what I said.

  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    JustVine wrote: »
    Very interesting to see that the important RNG vs Non-RNG in Hard CC conversation is still alive and kicking, sadly, even with a lot of new pages, it seems that the conversation hasn't evolved a lot and became kinda stagnant...

    I'm still technically waiting on your opinion irt a proposed 'meet in the middle' btw. It got buried in the meanwhile so I'll just repaste it here.

    Sorry, i might have not paid attention to it because it was a reply to Crow and not me.
    JustVine wrote: »
    Not that I really support this solution either but since you all have been pretty 'do or die' irt rng stun while offering no attempt to meet in the middle. So here is my attempt at pulling your sides half to the middle instead.

    What are your thoughts on a 'miss' being a partial fail rather than a full fail? That way the technical element of the action mode are the 'real' miss while you still get a 'partial things not going to plan' miss via the rng.

    The 'partial fail' could be designed one of two ways:

    It could be some portion of lower time limit. This means that you still have to react to the situation and possibly need to switch your next move on fail to be more optimal for damage or rotation. From the defenders side this is the more 'generous' and less technical option. It's simpler to do and balance on a technical level but might represent solvable design challenge to make it clear to both players whether or not you are experiencing a miss or hit.

    Or it could be some form of softer CC (e.g. the stun is now just a root or ability lock out or something that still feels consistent with the thematic to the move/class.) Now you as an attacker can 'plan' around having two 'strategies' ready one less optimal than the other depending on what abilities you have available and what your current advantage in the fight is. The defender otoh now has the opportunity to have their soft cc defenses come into play in a part of the fight that wouldn't otherwise happen. This makes the fight more dynamic and unpredictable since cc defenses are more linked to gear and can be switched up from fight to fight. But obviously requires a lot more balance considerations. But you also have less trouble with the animation problem that comes up in the other possible solution. (I am definitely strongly biased in preferring this approach. But they are probably both equally valid.)

    You also get the 'build' trade off of 'guaranteed cc time down but smaller than a 'miss' vs 'increasing miss chance' as possible route for designing gear.

    It seems like a viable middle of the road possibility, even tho i've never seem implementation of such system i believe the first "partial fail" design mentioned would certainly work and be a viable option, removing the RNG of deciding a total fail or total success but deciding the possible duration of the CC.
    Btw do you believe the partial fail duration reduction should be static or have a range?
    (Example: minimun duration 20%-25% of the total CC time, maximun duration 80%-75% of the total CC time and the numbers in between).

    I'm less favorable of the second "partial fail" design as it seems less logical and kind of a counter intuitive mechanic that would require:
    1. Tooltip information on all Hard CC skills explaning about how if your CC miss its "partial fail" roll it will apply another unrelated softer CC
    2. A pre-defined CC Peacking order structure list, explaning what Soft CC a said Hard CC will become if it misses its "partial fail" roll.

    I can understand the logic of a root CC becoming a slow CC because of a buff explicitly saying it,
    but a stun becoming a root? A stun becoming a Silence/disarm? What would a knockdown/knockback become? What would a Sleep become? Just doesn't make a lot of sense for me.

    Static vs range is a question of complexity and how much you want to tune things. They are both valid, but the range would shift a lot more people towards using a build guide because the more things seem less straightforward the more less confident or intelligent people are going to feel like doing the work themselves. On the flip side it'd let you allow for more chaos and unpredictability.

    As for your point about softening it sounds more abstract and less sensible when you don't have a more concrete and thematic example to work with. E.g. A thunderspark based stun could easily soften to a paralysis and feel natural. A large swinging overhead that knocks you into the ground literally planting you into it can naturally soften into a root if animated a certain way. A heavy blow to the head causing your skull to rattle is a little more abstract to convert to silence or ability lock but not /that/ farfetched. A knockdown could easily shift into a tumbling knockback (I don't really consider knockbacks hard cc as you have control over your characters abilities and direction usually otherwise its a stun by another name.) Sleep is already a pretty soft hard cc so shortening it directly is the only necessary thing there. I guess a knockback or sleep could soften into blind if the move involves sand in your face. It's really dependent on thematics and animation, but the concepts could be pretty easily steered that way if they designed moves with it in mind.

    To your tooltip point.... Yeah? That's pretty normal in MMOs isn't it? You would need to include the softening concept in some form of tutorial though yes.
    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
  • edited September 2021
    JustVine wrote: »
    Static vs range is a question of complexity and how much you want to tune things. They are both valid, but the range would shift a lot more people towards using a build guide because the more things seem less straightforward the more less confident or intelligent people are going to feel like doing the work themselves. On the flip side it'd let you allow for more chaos and unpredictability.

    As for your point about softening it sounds more abstract and less sensible when you don't have a more concrete and thematic example to work with. E.g. A thunderspark based stun could easily soften to a paralysis and feel natural. A large swinging overhead that knocks you into the ground literally planting you into it can naturally soften into a root if animated a certain way. A heavy blow to the head causing your skull to rattle is a little more abstract to convert to silence or ability lock but not /that/ farfetched. A knockdown could easily shift into a tumbling knockback (I don't really consider knockbacks hard cc as you have control over your characters abilities and direction usually otherwise its a stun by another name.) Sleep is already a pretty soft hard cc so shortening it directly is the only necessary thing there. I guess a knockback or sleep could soften into blind if the move involves sand in your face. It's really dependent on thematics and animation, but the concepts could be pretty easily steered that way if they designed moves with it in mind.

    To your tooltip point.... Yeah? That's pretty normal in MMOs isn't it? You would need to include the softening concept in some form of tutorial though yes.

    I would certainly favor Range over Static, because it would be an extra balancing tool, but mostly just as matter of preference for more chaos and unpredictability. :D

    Amazing explanation about the second "partial fail" design! Even tho i would still favor the first "partial fail" design, now it makes much more sense for me on how it would work! And yeah it would certainly require it's own tutorial to expose the system out for players due to how original and different from other games it is.

    Now this was definitely an evolution to the thread in general as those 2 "partial fail" design gives blurring lines and are an addition of possibilities to the binary RNG vs Non-RNG Hard-CC conflict.

    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • maouwmaouw Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I was hoping we'd get to a point of understanding why people so fixatedly cannot separate RNG from RPG.
    But we did not, and I sense a level of stubbornness that renders further discussion here pointless.

    Therefore, here's something else to talk about. There are two aspects of this discussion that I think are worth considering:
    • RNG on a micro-level (in this case we're fixated on hit and miss) provides openings for macro-level play
    • RNG was originally intended to be TT's tradeoff for AC's requirement for mechanical skill
    I wish I were deep and tragic
Sign In or Register to comment.