Crowd control should not be based on RNG

Caeryl

I could have sworn we were promised no targeted hard CC, as healthy as a CC system can get, so where is this discussion coming from?

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

wow

So yeah, poor game design choice. Not a shock to anyone, honestly.

A stun should always be an active ability that one player choses to use on another player. However, that doesn't mean elements of RNG can't come in to the picture.

In fact, RNG elements should be in that picture, but only under the understanding that players are able to affect the weighting of that RNG. I totally agree that there should be no elements at all in an MMORPG's combat that has RNG but no means for players to alter it.

This isn't a "this ability has a 50% chance to stun your target" type thing - that would be as stupid as what you are talking about from WoW.

Rather, a stun hitting or missing is no different to a players attack hitting or being avoided by the target. The attackers hit stat vs the defenders avoid stat, add in some RNG and determine what happens.

The reason the RNG is needed here is that otherwise, if two players have opposing stats, the abilities will either always miss or always hit.

So basically, your options are to remove gear and build from the equation and make it so CC's always hit, add gear and builds in to the equation and make it so that you always either hit or miss the same characters, or make it so that gear and builds are a part of the equation, and have an element of RNG in the process.

Now, I completely understand discussion as to how much RNG should be involved - but I don't understand the notion of removing gear and build from an aspect of combat, which is what removing RNG from CC would see happen.

Vhaeyne

As someone who was very skeptical of Ashes early on. This bit from the Wiki is part of what sold me on Ashes.

For the purposes of balance, certain skill types will be either tab or action oriented skills. For example:[29]

Hard CCs may be housed in action oriented skills because they are skill shots that are more difficult to land.[29][26]
Softer CC's would be housed in tab-targeted abilities.[29]

I think this relates to the topic very well. Skill shots as I understand the term should act outside the RPG RNG hit/miss system. Stats should not be involved for these skills. As a player, I proved I hit my target when I aimed for it. My target failed his dodge/evasion check when I hit him.

My hope would be that for these "Hard CCs" they would have long cool downs and small hit boxes to land, but no saving throws. "Soft CCs" would have all of the normal RPG stats. They would still be useful, but just weaker (Shorter CC times, and they would land less often).

If they make an action combat system where you can land a CC and nothing happens because RNG and stats. Then they have just made a class of skills that will not get used.

Not fully skills matter more than luck like OP wants because RPG RNG is still a poison in the combat system. Unless they limit CC to only action moves(Which, I think, would be great). The way I read the quotes from the wiki above, it looks like a compromise at least.

truelyyy

Caeryl wrote: »

I could have sworn we were promised no targeted hard CC, as healthy as a CC system can get, so where is this discussion coming from?

It exists in alpha 1 so not sure where you are getting your info from

truelyyy

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

The problem with RNG CC vs Non-RNG CC is because they require different types of balancing and how good they work in a game depends alot in the pace of the game and it's killtime, that being said RNG CC is a powerful nerf to the natural powerlevel of Hard-CCs and Hard-CC locks.

But i will have to add that its not only:
"if its guaranteed = skills matter more than RNG
if its not (like it is now in alpha) = if you have bad luck you will die to the on who has better luck."
But also:
if its guaranteed = it's predictable and your next skill is guaranteed which makes Hard CC lock a thing
(Not considering Instant CC removal or CC immunity skills)
if its not = if you have bad luck you have to improvise on the fly, maybe use another CC right after? follow-up? Disengage? Reposition? Do you try to build more CC chance or more CC resist?

I've never been a subscriber to the notion that removing RNG makes player skill matter more.

The only way this is accurate is if you consider "player skill" and "player ability to memorize one specific combination of abilities and then reproduce that" to be synonymous with each other.

As you state above, with an element of RNG in combat, players need to think, re-evaluate, calculate. Any one of these demonstrates more player skill than repeating an ability combination.

Involving an element of RNG in to the game also means players are given more options on how to create a build than without it, as I have yet to come across an RNG element in an RPG's combat system that both the attacker and defender couldn't influence.

Games with hit chance RNG allow players to increase their chance to hit, and to increase their chance to avoid. Games with crits allow players to increase their crit chance, and often the amount of additional damage a crit does. Players often also have the ability to increase their resistance to crit hits, both in terms of reducing the chance they will take one, and reducing the additional damage they do when the player does get hit by one.

The same is often the case for CC.

This added RNG doesn't reduce the need for player skill at all. What it does is it enhances the value of player skill in building their character (do I want a higher chance of my CC's landing, a higher chance of others CC's not landing on me, more CC's to cast, more CC breaks, etc). In terms of RPG's, character build is a key aspect of player skill (even if in some popular games it is expected that you just follow someone else's build).

However, that RNG, coupled with that build strategy, combine to give the player options in combat. With no RNG, the "option" is to cast their CC on the target. Not a lot of player skill in that. With RNG, they have the option of casting their CC on their target, but then need to have a backup plan in mind for if that fails.

How people can say the no RNG situation elevates player skill is beyond me.

This, you got it!
RNG isn't a detriment to player skill at all, but a test for player adaptability and fast judgement to unpredictable possibilities and outcomes, aswell as properly building your character to improve your odds.
No RNG in MMORPGS is just bland and predictable.

Got to disagree. If you go in and commit yourself to a Cc and it fails, you are left out of position through nothing but rng. The skilful gameplay is if the Cc Ed targets gets shielded/healed/ Cc break by ally or the target dodged the Cc

Noaani

truely wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

I could have sworn we were promised no targeted hard CC, as healthy as a CC system can get, so where is this discussion coming from?

It exists in alpha 1 so not sure where you are getting your info from

A thing existing in alpha does not mean it will end up in the game in that same form.

Caeryl is right in that they did say that hard CC is more likely to be targeted and soft CC more likely to be tab target based.

Noaani

truely wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

The problem with RNG CC vs Non-RNG CC is because they require different types of balancing and how good they work in a game depends alot in the pace of the game and it's killtime, that being said RNG CC is a powerful nerf to the natural powerlevel of Hard-CCs and Hard-CC locks.

But i will have to add that its not only:
"if its guaranteed = skills matter more than RNG
if its not (like it is now in alpha) = if you have bad luck you will die to the on who has better luck."
But also:
if its guaranteed = it's predictable and your next skill is guaranteed which makes Hard CC lock a thing
(Not considering Instant CC removal or CC immunity skills)
if its not = if you have bad luck you have to improvise on the fly, maybe use another CC right after? follow-up? Disengage? Reposition? Do you try to build more CC chance or more CC resist?

I've never been a subscriber to the notion that removing RNG makes player skill matter more.

The only way this is accurate is if you consider "player skill" and "player ability to memorize one specific combination of abilities and then reproduce that" to be synonymous with each other.

As you state above, with an element of RNG in combat, players need to think, re-evaluate, calculate. Any one of these demonstrates more player skill than repeating an ability combination.

Involving an element of RNG in to the game also means players are given more options on how to create a build than without it, as I have yet to come across an RNG element in an RPG's combat system that both the attacker and defender couldn't influence.

Games with hit chance RNG allow players to increase their chance to hit, and to increase their chance to avoid. Games with crits allow players to increase their crit chance, and often the amount of additional damage a crit does. Players often also have the ability to increase their resistance to crit hits, both in terms of reducing the chance they will take one, and reducing the additional damage they do when the player does get hit by one.

The same is often the case for CC.

This added RNG doesn't reduce the need for player skill at all. What it does is it enhances the value of player skill in building their character (do I want a higher chance of my CC's landing, a higher chance of others CC's not landing on me, more CC's to cast, more CC breaks, etc). In terms of RPG's, character build is a key aspect of player skill (even if in some popular games it is expected that you just follow someone else's build).

However, that RNG, coupled with that build strategy, combine to give the player options in combat. With no RNG, the "option" is to cast their CC on the target. Not a lot of player skill in that. With RNG, they have the option of casting their CC on their target, but then need to have a backup plan in mind for if that fails.

How people can say the no RNG situation elevates player skill is beyond me.

This, you got it!
RNG isn't a detriment to player skill at all, but a test for player adaptability and fast judgement to unpredictable possibilities and outcomes, aswell as properly building your character to improve your odds.
No RNG in MMORPGS is just bland and predictable.

Got to disagree. If you go in and commit yourself to a Cc and it fails, you are left out of position through nothing but rng. The skilful gameplay is if the Cc Ed targets gets shielded/healed/ Cc break by ally or the target dodged the Cc

If you are playing a game that has RNG for CC, dont do something stupid that would get you killed if your CC fails.

The problem is in people playing games with RNG on CC playing those games as if they didnt have RNG on CC.

If you play the game as it is in front of you, issues like that dont happen.

truelyyy

.

truelyyy

Noaani wrote: »

truely wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

The problem with RNG CC vs Non-RNG CC is because they require different types of balancing and how good they work in a game depends alot in the pace of the game and it's killtime, that being said RNG CC is a powerful nerf to the natural powerlevel of Hard-CCs and Hard-CC locks.

But i will have to add that its not only:
"if its guaranteed = skills matter more than RNG
if its not (like it is now in alpha) = if you have bad luck you will die to the on who has better luck."
But also:
if its guaranteed = it's predictable and your next skill is guaranteed which makes Hard CC lock a thing
(Not considering Instant CC removal or CC immunity skills)
if its not = if you have bad luck you have to improvise on the fly, maybe use another CC right after? follow-up? Disengage? Reposition? Do you try to build more CC chance or more CC resist?

I've never been a subscriber to the notion that removing RNG makes player skill matter more.

The only way this is accurate is if you consider "player skill" and "player ability to memorize one specific combination of abilities and then reproduce that" to be synonymous with each other.

As you state above, with an element of RNG in combat, players need to think, re-evaluate, calculate. Any one of these demonstrates more player skill than repeating an ability combination.

Involving an element of RNG in to the game also means players are given more options on how to create a build than without it, as I have yet to come across an RNG element in an RPG's combat system that both the attacker and defender couldn't influence.

Games with hit chance RNG allow players to increase their chance to hit, and to increase their chance to avoid. Games with crits allow players to increase their crit chance, and often the amount of additional damage a crit does. Players often also have the ability to increase their resistance to crit hits, both in terms of reducing the chance they will take one, and reducing the additional damage they do when the player does get hit by one.

The same is often the case for CC.

This added RNG doesn't reduce the need for player skill at all. What it does is it enhances the value of player skill in building their character (do I want a higher chance of my CC's landing, a higher chance of others CC's not landing on me, more CC's to cast, more CC breaks, etc). In terms of RPG's, character build is a key aspect of player skill (even if in some popular games it is expected that you just follow someone else's build).

However, that RNG, coupled with that build strategy, combine to give the player options in combat. With no RNG, the "option" is to cast their CC on the target. Not a lot of player skill in that. With RNG, they have the option of casting their CC on their target, but then need to have a backup plan in mind for if that fails.

How people can say the no RNG situation elevates player skill is beyond me.

This, you got it!
RNG isn't a detriment to player skill at all, but a test for player adaptability and fast judgement to unpredictable possibilities and outcomes, aswell as properly building your character to improve your odds.
No RNG in MMORPGS is just bland and predictable.

Got to disagree. If you go in and commit yourself to a Cc and it fails, you are left out of position through nothing but rng. The skilful gameplay is if the Cc Ed targets gets shielded/healed/ Cc break by ally or the target dodged the Cc

If you are playing a game that has RNG for CC, dont do something stupid that would get you killed if your CC fails.

The problem is in people playing games with RNG on CC playing those games as if they didnt have RNG on CC.

If you play the game as it is in front of you, issues like that dont happen.

initiating is part of the game, I mean what the improvements made by adding RnG to CC I don't see any. Just having passive stats to increase disable % and defense disable % is hardly skillful character building.

truelyyy

Noaani wrote: »

truely wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

I could have sworn we were promised no targeted hard CC, as healthy as a CC system can get, so where is this discussion coming from?

It exists in alpha 1 so not sure where you are getting your info from

A thing existing in alpha does not mean it will end up in the game in that same form.

Caeryl is right in that they did say that hard CC is more likely to be targeted and soft CC more likely to be tab target based.

ok but but to both of you not sure what that's to do with the OP, it's about RnG on hard CC whether it's targetted or aimed. Using the mage stun even though i play on tab it's still got a small hit box in front and can be missed.

Sathrago

Just floppin my opinion on the table real quick. Agreed that rng-based cc is lame and should be avoided, a perfect example of this is the classic world of warcraft version of shadowpriests. God that was annoying.

In my opinion, CC should have a built in choice for the recipient. For example I hit someone with an ability that tethers them to a location for a few seconds, if they move too far away (break the tether) they receive damage and a CC element. How about a meduse-esque CC that will take effect if the enemy player is looking in your direction once the ability finishes casting? Or how about a debuff that deals more damage the more the target moves?

I believe this is more interactive and meaningful than tab-targeting a player and automatically stunning them with an instant cast ability. Mix in the above with skill shot-based cc and I think we are looking at a spicy pvp system.

truelyyy

Dygz wrote: »

RPGs were not designed for PvP.
MMORPGs typically had PvP in them as an after-thought.
MMORPGs are RPGs before they are PvP games... and RNG is a fundamental element of RPGs.
Gamers wanted MMORPGs to have PvP - which they weren't really designed for - and that's why there are then complaints about class nerfs and re-balancing of 1v1 PvP combat....and RNG.

PvP has been in MMORPGs have been around since early times such as runescape. I think you are applying single player RPG logic to MMORPGs. Hence your statement really reads RPGs were never meant to be multiplayer, i.e. MMORPGs.

Also I dont really understand why RPGs would need RnG is their combat system, I always thought the RnG was more to do with the story and situations rather than the actual base combat system.

truelyyy

another point to add is why is hard CC RnG good but not on all other skills? Applying the same logic, Imagine all your skills had RnG on whether their effects cast, it would just be rubbish gameplay and it applies to hard CC as well.

Guli

Good that people have different thoughts on this, we need to figure this out sooner than later.
also i thought about it some more, and what if CC has 100% hit rate (if not rolled/shielded etc) but you could modify your gear/use skills that shorten the amount of time you are affected by the CC.

Vhaeyne

Guli wrote: »

Good that people have different thoughts on this, we need to figure this out sooner than later.
also i thought about it some more, and what if CC has 100% hit rate (if not rolled/shielded etc) but you could modify your gear/use skills that shorten the amount of time you are affected by the CC.

In the case of action combat skills with the "Hard CCs" I think that is the intention. 100% hit rate if your projectile collides with the other player's hit box. After that, post hit stats would still be in play.

Guli

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Guli wrote: »

Good that people have different thoughts on this, we need to figure this out sooner than later.
also i thought about it some more, and what if CC has 100% hit rate (if not rolled/shielded etc) but you could modify your gear/use skills that shorten the amount of time you are affected by the CC.

In the case of action combat skills with the "Hard CCs" I think that is the intention. 100% hit rate if your projectile collides with the other player's hit box. After that, post hit stats would still be in play.

yeah i dont mind every CC to be a skillshot, all im focused on is that there is no rng involved. im not saying we need a 1 click button cc that follows the targets and locks him in place

JustVine

Vhaeyne wrote: »

As someone who was very skeptical of Ashes early on. This bit from the Wiki is part of what sold me on Ashes.

For the purposes of balance, certain skill types will be either tab or action oriented skills. For example:[29]

Hard CCs may be housed in action oriented skills because they are skill shots that are more difficult to land.[29][26]
Softer CC's would be housed in tab-targeted abilities.[29]

I think this relates to the topic very well. Skill shots as I understand the term should act outside the RPG RNG hit/miss system. Stats should not be involved for these skills. As a player, I proved I hit my target when I aimed for it. My target failed his dodge/evasion check when I hit him.

My hope would be that for these "Hard CCs" they would have long cool downs and small hit boxes to land, but no saving throws. "Soft CCs" would have all of the normal RPG stats. They would still be useful, but just weaker (Shorter CC times, and they would land less often).

If they make an action combat system where you can land a CC and nothing happens because RNG and stats. Then they have just made a class of skills that will not get used.

Not fully skills matter more than luck like OP wants because RPG RNG is still a poison in the combat system. Unless they limit CC to only action moves(Which, I think, would be great). The way I read the quotes from the wiki above, it looks like a compromise at least.

I wasn't planning on responding further in this thread but since you are here and shared some reasonable perspective as usual I will respond.

I feel it will absolutely get used. 'Lose a turn' would have to be rediculosly low odds for people to not use it, the skill shot will probably just make it unpopular at lower skill levels, while still dominating the meta at higher skill levels. Even with a long cooldown (which I fully support them having if they are going to have stun.) In any meaningful form of pvp it is free buckets of damage due to Ashes high time to kill.

I doubt adding a skillshot to the hard cc will address the problems of hard cc in the same way rng doesn't. Skillshots generally have about the same accuracy if not better in champion fighters for example as the generally designed rng odds for stun (50 worse 70ish best). And even if it is, the frequency is probably closer to what the rng odds would be, it's just with the 'chance' of it being 100% Here is why:

Think about who gets hard cc traditionally. Fighters, Tanks, Ranger, Mage (and summoner by nature of their job usually gets a summon with it but let's exclude them given how little we know of their intended design)

Two front liners who can negate movement abilities in some way, by either closing distance or pulling back. Two backliners who have big burst damage and no reason to not just open with stun into big burst damage.

Now by nature when you make a high cooldown skill, as a game designer you need the player to still have meaningful odds in an encounter, because it isnt fun to be maimed waiting for a key ability right? So they still need a strong kit without stun. You can't really lock a ranger's or mage's burst damage behind one skill either. Usually they have multiple. So the stun is probably not going to come at the cost of their ability to delete. The skill shot for these classes is almost assuredly easy for them with a bit of practice.

Fighters and Tanks otoh have slightly less high burst damage right? But because they have strong stickiness, and the ability to pull you back/pounce your movement ability if you mash out after the timer, you now not only have half your health missing, but just 'wasted' your movement ability and are rapidly dying. If you stay there, your still at a strong health disadvantage and in a team scenario, probably deleteable. I would argue the skill shot might be slightly harder in this scenario due to the sharper angles in melee, but.... 'shield bash' for example, by nature is usually quick to animate. Same with hamstring etc. Your 'small hit box' idea is a reasonable hope, but I am unsure Ashes is going in the 'small hit box' direction. If they add hard cc it's definitely worth yelling at them about it if the hit boxes are 'normal' I think.

truelyyy

Guli wrote: »

Good that people have different thoughts on this, we need to figure this out sooner than later.
also i thought about it some more, and what if CC has 100% hit rate (if not rolled/shielded etc) but you could modify your gear/use skills that shorten the amount of time you are affected by the CC.

I think that's a great solution if the disable% stats affect hard CC length rather than completely nullifying the CC as a comprimise. Just completely nullifying CC seems too harsh and RnG.

JustVine

truely wrote: »

Guli wrote: »

Good that people have different thoughts on this, we need to figure this out sooner than later.
also i thought about it some more, and what if CC has 100% hit rate (if not rolled/shielded etc) but you could modify your gear/use skills that shorten the amount of time you are affected by the CC.

I think that's a great solution if the disable% stats affect hard CC length rather than completely nullifying the CC

I've only seen this work in fighting game strategy level champion fighters. Ashes is neither a champion fighter nor do people seem to want this to be fighting game level design balance (after all we are talking about ashes having hard cc here which in itself negates two layers of fighting game style strategy.) Name a mmo this solution has ever made stun not a stagnating/build restricting factor in the meta or not a free win.

truelyyy

JustVine wrote: »

truely wrote: »

Guli wrote: »

Good that people have different thoughts on this, we need to figure this out sooner than later.
also i thought about it some more, and what if CC has 100% hit rate (if not rolled/shielded etc) but you could modify your gear/use skills that shorten the amount of time you are affected by the CC.

I think that's a great solution if the disable% stats affect hard CC length rather than completely nullifying the CC

I've only seen this work in fighting game strategy level champion fighters. Ashes is neither a champion fighter nor do people seem to want this to be fighting game level design balance (after all we are talking about ashes having hard cc here which in itself negates two layers of fighting game style strategy.) Name a mmo this solution has ever made stun not a stagnating/build restricting factor in the meta or not a free win.

what's your point, that there should be no hard CCs?
Pretty sure GW2 has hard CCs and it's not a CC stun lock auto win.

JustVine

truely wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

truely wrote: »

Guli wrote: »

Good that people have different thoughts on this, we need to figure this out sooner than later.
also i thought about it some more, and what if CC has 100% hit rate (if not rolled/shielded etc) but you could modify your gear/use skills that shorten the amount of time you are affected by the CC.

I think that's a great solution if the disable% stats affect hard CC length rather than completely nullifying the CC

I've only seen this work in fighting game strategy level champion fighters. Ashes is neither a champion fighter nor do people seem to want this to be fighting game level design balance (after all we are talking about ashes having hard cc here which in itself negates two layers of fighting game style strategy.) Name a mmo this solution has ever made stun not a stagnating/build restricting factor in the meta or not a free win.

what's your point, that there should be no hard CCs?
Pretty sure GW2 has hard CCs and it's not a CC stun lock auto win.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/70706-stun-meta-needs-to-go/ Uhm.....

Vhaeyne

JustVine wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

As someone who was very skeptical of Ashes early on. This bit from the Wiki is part of what sold me on Ashes.

For the purposes of balance, certain skill types will be either tab or action oriented skills. For example:[29]

Hard CCs may be housed in action oriented skills because they are skill shots that are more difficult to land.[29][26]
Softer CC's would be housed in tab-targeted abilities.[29]

I think this relates to the topic very well. Skill shots as I understand the term should act outside the RPG RNG hit/miss system. Stats should not be involved for these skills. As a player, I proved I hit my target when I aimed for it. My target failed his dodge/evasion check when I hit him.

My hope would be that for these "Hard CCs" they would have long cool downs and small hit boxes to land, but no saving throws. "Soft CCs" would have all of the normal RPG stats. They would still be useful, but just weaker (Shorter CC times, and they would land less often).

If they make an action combat system where you can land a CC and nothing happens because RNG and stats. Then they have just made a class of skills that will not get used.

Not fully skills matter more than luck like OP wants because RPG RNG is still a poison in the combat system. Unless they limit CC to only action moves(Which, I think, would be great). The way I read the quotes from the wiki above, it looks like a compromise at least.

I wasn't planning on responding further in this thread but since you are here and shared some reasonable perspective as usual I will respond.

I feel it will absolutely get used. 'Lose a turn' would have to be rediculosly low odds for people to not use it, the skill shot will probably just make it unpopular at lower skill levels, while still dominating the meta at higher skill levels. Even with a long cooldown (which I fully support them having if they are going to have stun.) In any meaningful form of pvp it is free buckets of damage due to Ashes high time to kill.

I doubt adding a skillshot to the hard cc will address the problems of hard cc in the same way rng doesn't. Skillshots generally have about the same accuracy if not better in champion fighters for example as the generally designed rng odds for stun (50 worse 70ish best). And even if it is, the frequency is probably closer to what the rng odds would be, it's just with the 'chance' of it being 100% Here is why:

Think about who gets hard cc traditionally. Fighters, Tanks, Ranger, Mage (and summoner by nature of their job usually gets a summon with it but let's exclude them given how little we know of their intended design)

Two front liners who can negate movement abilities in some way, by either closing distance or pulling back. Two backliners who have big burst damage and no reason to not just open with stun into big burst damage.

Now by nature when you make a high cooldown skill, as a game designer you need the player to still have meaningful odds in an encounter, because it isnt fun to be maimed waiting for a key ability right? So they still need a strong kit without stun. You can't really lock a ranger's or mage's burst damage behind one skill either. Usually they have multiple. So the stun is probably not going to come at the cost of their ability to delete. The skill shot for these classes is almost assuredly easy for them with a bit of practice.

Fighters and Tanks otoh have slightly less high burst damage right? But because they have strong stickiness, and the ability to pull you back/pounce your movement ability if you mash out after the timer, you now not only have half your health missing, but just 'wasted' your movement ability and are rapidly dying. If you stay there, your still at a strong health disadvantage and in a team scenario, probably deleteable. I would argue the skill shot might be slightly harder in this scenario due to the sharper angles in melee, but.... 'shield bash' for example, by nature is usually quick to animate. Same with hamstring etc. Your 'small hit box' idea is a reasonable hope, but I am unsure Ashes is going in the 'small hit box' direction. If they add hard cc it's definitely worth yelling at them about it if the hit boxes are 'normal' I think.

You cought me at the end of my day. I'll try to respond about 12-16 hours from now.

JustVine

Vhaeyne wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

As someone who was very skeptical of Ashes early on. This bit from the Wiki is part of what sold me on Ashes.

For the purposes of balance, certain skill types will be either tab or action oriented skills. For example:[29]

Hard CCs may be housed in action oriented skills because they are skill shots that are more difficult to land.[29][26]
Softer CC's would be housed in tab-targeted abilities.[29]

I think this relates to the topic very well. Skill shots as I understand the term should act outside the RPG RNG hit/miss system. Stats should not be involved for these skills. As a player, I proved I hit my target when I aimed for it. My target failed his dodge/evasion check when I hit him.

My hope would be that for these "Hard CCs" they would have long cool downs and small hit boxes to land, but no saving throws. "Soft CCs" would have all of the normal RPG stats. They would still be useful, but just weaker (Shorter CC times, and they would land less often).

If they make an action combat system where you can land a CC and nothing happens because RNG and stats. Then they have just made a class of skills that will not get used.

Not fully skills matter more than luck like OP wants because RPG RNG is still a poison in the combat system. Unless they limit CC to only action moves(Which, I think, would be great). The way I read the quotes from the wiki above, it looks like a compromise at least.

I wasn't planning on responding further in this thread but since you are here and shared some reasonable perspective as usual I will respond.

I feel it will absolutely get used. 'Lose a turn' would have to be rediculosly low odds for people to not use it, the skill shot will probably just make it unpopular at lower skill levels, while still dominating the meta at higher skill levels. Even with a long cooldown (which I fully support them having if they are going to have stun.) In any meaningful form of pvp it is free buckets of damage due to Ashes high time to kill.

I doubt adding a skillshot to the hard cc will address the problems of hard cc in the same way rng doesn't. Skillshots generally have about the same accuracy if not better in champion fighters for example as the generally designed rng odds for stun (50 worse 70ish best). And even if it is, the frequency is probably closer to what the rng odds would be, it's just with the 'chance' of it being 100% Here is why:

Think about who gets hard cc traditionally. Fighters, Tanks, Ranger, Mage (and summoner by nature of their job usually gets a summon with it but let's exclude them given how little we know of their intended design)

Two front liners who can negate movement abilities in some way, by either closing distance or pulling back. Two backliners who have big burst damage and no reason to not just open with stun into big burst damage.

Now by nature when you make a high cooldown skill, as a game designer you need the player to still have meaningful odds in an encounter, because it isnt fun to be maimed waiting for a key ability right? So they still need a strong kit without stun. You can't really lock a ranger's or mage's burst damage behind one skill either. Usually they have multiple. So the stun is probably not going to come at the cost of their ability to delete. The skill shot for these classes is almost assuredly easy for them with a bit of practice.

Fighters and Tanks otoh have slightly less high burst damage right? But because they have strong stickiness, and the ability to pull you back/pounce your movement ability if you mash out after the timer, you now not only have half your health missing, but just 'wasted' your movement ability and are rapidly dying. If you stay there, your still at a strong health disadvantage and in a team scenario, probably deleteable. I would argue the skill shot might be slightly harder in this scenario due to the sharper angles in melee, but.... 'shield bash' for example, by nature is usually quick to animate. Same with hamstring etc. Your 'small hit box' idea is a reasonable hope, but I am unsure Ashes is going in the 'small hit box' direction. If they add hard cc it's definitely worth yelling at them about it if the hit boxes are 'normal' I think.

You cought me at the end of my day. I'll try to respond about 12-16 hours from now.

Np mate. Thanks for the let.

truelyyy

JustVine wrote: »

truely wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

truely wrote: »

Guli wrote: »

Good that people have different thoughts on this, we need to figure this out sooner than later.
also i thought about it some more, and what if CC has 100% hit rate (if not rolled/shielded etc) but you could modify your gear/use skills that shorten the amount of time you are affected by the CC.

I think that's a great solution if the disable% stats affect hard CC length rather than completely nullifying the CC

I've only seen this work in fighting game strategy level champion fighters. Ashes is neither a champion fighter nor do people seem to want this to be fighting game level design balance (after all we are talking about ashes having hard cc here which in itself negates two layers of fighting game style strategy.) Name a mmo this solution has ever made stun not a stagnating/build restricting factor in the meta or not a free win.

what's your point, that there should be no hard CCs?
Pretty sure GW2 has hard CCs and it's not a CC stun lock auto win.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/70706-stun-meta-needs-to-go/ Uhm.....

You always get people moaning about stuff. If you read the post most of the people replying they disagree with the OP. This really doesn't prove anything, having played GW2 myself I can say hard CC isnt a problem in that game.

Noaani

truely wrote: »

Just having passive stats to increase disable % and defense disable % is hardly skillful character building.

Being presented with multiple viable options and picking the correct option for your specific situation is skillful character building.

The more viable options that are present, the more skill it allows for.

In a game like WoW or ESO where there are only a handful of viable options and every member of a given class goes for the same gear set, there are no viable options for class builds.

In a game like Ashes, where gear stats are not pre-determined and where you can equip what ever gear you like on your character (and where atypical builds can often give you an advantage in PvP), there is actual, real, tangible skill in creating a build.

JustVine

truely wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

truely wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

truely wrote: »

Guli wrote: »

Good that people have different thoughts on this, we need to figure this out sooner than later.
also i thought about it some more, and what if CC has 100% hit rate (if not rolled/shielded etc) but you could modify your gear/use skills that shorten the amount of time you are affected by the CC.

I think that's a great solution if the disable% stats affect hard CC length rather than completely nullifying the CC

I've only seen this work in fighting game strategy level champion fighters. Ashes is neither a champion fighter nor do people seem to want this to be fighting game level design balance (after all we are talking about ashes having hard cc here which in itself negates two layers of fighting game style strategy.) Name a mmo this solution has ever made stun not a stagnating/build restricting factor in the meta or not a free win.

what's your point, that there should be no hard CCs?
Pretty sure GW2 has hard CCs and it's not a CC stun lock auto win.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/70706-stun-meta-needs-to-go/ Uhm.....

You always get people moaning about stuff. If you read the post most of the people replying they disagree with the OP. This really doesn't prove anything, having played GW2 myself I can say hard CC isnt a problem in that game.

It stagnates meta and restricts build choices. It is the number one leading cause for it. That's all I have argued in this thread. There are proposed solutions for alternatives to one button hard cc in @Dreoh stun thread.

truelyyy

Noaani wrote: »

truely wrote: »

Just having passive stats to increase disable % and defense disable % is hardly skillful character building.

Being presented with multiple viable options and picking the correct option for your specific situation is skillful character building.

The more viable options that are present, the more skill it allows for.

In a game like WoW or ESO where there are only a handful of viable options and every member of a given class goes for the same gear set, there are no viable options for class builds.

In a game like Ashes, where gear stats are not pre-determined and where you can equip what ever gear you like on your character (and where atypical builds can often give you an advantage in PvP), there is actual, real, tangible skill in creating a build.

I'm not saying you can't have skill in creating builds overall. I'm saying you can't have skill in builds that are based on upping %disable modifiers. Also not sure what you mean by stats on armour are not predetermined, armour still has set stats you can't choose whatever you like, obviously different armour offers different stats.

truelyyy

JustVine wrote: »

truely wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

truely wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

truely wrote: »

Guli wrote: »

Good that people have different thoughts on this, we need to figure this out sooner than later.
also i thought about it some more, and what if CC has 100% hit rate (if not rolled/shielded etc) but you could modify your gear/use skills that shorten the amount of time you are affected by the CC.

I think that's a great solution if the disable% stats affect hard CC length rather than completely nullifying the CC

I've only seen this work in fighting game strategy level champion fighters. Ashes is neither a champion fighter nor do people seem to want this to be fighting game level design balance (after all we are talking about ashes having hard cc here which in itself negates two layers of fighting game style strategy.) Name a mmo this solution has ever made stun not a stagnating/build restricting factor in the meta or not a free win.

what's your point, that there should be no hard CCs?
Pretty sure GW2 has hard CCs and it's not a CC stun lock auto win.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/70706-stun-meta-needs-to-go/ Uhm.....

You always get people moaning about stuff. If you read the post most of the people replying they disagree with the OP. This really doesn't prove anything, having played GW2 myself I can say hard CC isnt a problem in that game.

It stagnates meta and restricts build choices. It is the number one leading cause for it. That's all I have argued in this thread. There are proposed solutions for alternatives to one button hard cc in @Dreoh stun thread.

you are debating a point which isn't the point of the thread...it's about RnG on hard CC not whether they should exist or not.

Noaani

truely wrote: »

I'm not saying you can't have skill in creating builds overall. I'm saying you can't have skill in builds that are based on upping %disable modifiers. Also not sure what you mean by stats on armour are not predetermined, armour still has set stats you can't choose whatever you like, obviously different armour offers different stats.

No one said anything about basing builds on percent chances, that is simply a viable aspect of builds.

It may well be that your build has no CC breaks, and so any increase to the chance a CC will miss you is inherently good. On the other hand, it may be that you have a lot of CC breaks, and so this stat is of no use to you. Or you could fit somewhere in the middle.

Also;

Crafters will be able to assign different skills/abilities and stats on gear.[15][16]
Master crafters will be able to influence several (but not all) stats on their crafted items.[15][17]

Since most gear will be crafted (likely 90%+ of what is actually used), it is indeed true that stats on gear are not pre-determined.

Which, incidentally, is why I said it.

JustVine

truely wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

truely wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

truely wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

truely wrote: »

Guli wrote: »

Good that people have different thoughts on this, we need to figure this out sooner than later.
also i thought about it some more, and what if CC has 100% hit rate (if not rolled/shielded etc) but you could modify your gear/use skills that shorten the amount of time you are affected by the CC.

I think that's a great solution if the disable% stats affect hard CC length rather than completely nullifying the CC

I've only seen this work in fighting game strategy level champion fighters. Ashes is neither a champion fighter nor do people seem to want this to be fighting game level design balance (after all we are talking about ashes having hard cc here which in itself negates two layers of fighting game style strategy.) Name a mmo this solution has ever made stun not a stagnating/build restricting factor in the meta or not a free win.

what's your point, that there should be no hard CCs?
Pretty sure GW2 has hard CCs and it's not a CC stun lock auto win.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/70706-stun-meta-needs-to-go/ Uhm.....

You always get people moaning about stuff. If you read the post most of the people replying they disagree with the OP. This really doesn't prove anything, having played GW2 myself I can say hard CC isnt a problem in that game.

It stagnates meta and restricts build choices. It is the number one leading cause for it. That's all I have argued in this thread. There are proposed solutions for alternatives to one button hard cc in @Dreoh stun thread.

you are debating a point which isn't the point of the thread...it's about RnG on hard CC not whether they should exist or not.

You aren't getting my point if that's your conclusion. I was pointing out that rng vs action would not change the effect it has on meta and builds (which is my actual problem with it.)