Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
I like the way you think, Vine. This can be a pretty interesting middle ground. So, if I'm hearing you accurately, it looks something like this:
When a player casts a hard cc, there's a roll against a global 1/1000 chance to miss (mitigated by some stat aug), if the roll fails then do a quick roll on another table that could be something like this:
Roll Effect
1 Miss Entirely
2 Hit for 10% dmg / duration
3 Hit for 20% dmg / duration
4 Hit for 40% dmg / duration
5 Hit for 60% dmg / duration
6 Hit for 80% dmg / duration
Is that close to what you were thinking? If so, I think it's awesome.
No. The 'miss entirely' would only apply to 'physically missing the action mode attack' (the aforementioned compromise. The rng miss reffers to the 'partial fail'. The amount of variance in the 'partial fail' doesn't technically matter as long as both players have the same amount of information as to what roll resulted. It is just generally easier to only have three different categories (ie physical miss, rng partial miss, and rng success.)
If the game goes tab only the 'true' miss would have to be part of the roll. I am just not assuming the game is going full tab.
The problem with WoWs combat system (in regards to what we are talking about) is that CC matters too much.
A 6 second stun has no place existing in any MMO.
If you lower the duration to 3 seconds, which is the longest a stun should last, then a stun landing or not has a significantly lesser impact on the outcome.
I mean, I agree that if you have a game where landing or not landing a CC is the difference between winning or losing, having that be controlled by one case of RNG is bad. Thing is, that isnt the fault of RNG, that is the fault of having one CC be the difference between winning and losing.
Ah, ok. So remove the chance to miss from RNG entirely, such that when that 1/1000 roll is hit, the result is only a glancing blow of some percent damage / impact / duration, etc. Is that what you're thinking?
If that's the case, what governs a miss? Or does everything hit in the 'middle ground'?
Well presumably in a skill shot scenario, if the combat doesn't suck, there are stresses that can make you miss a shot or your opponent can use their movement abilities to cause you to miss the skill shot. In the case of hard cc the 'fizzle' is the physical miss.
Ok so you miss entirely your skill goes on cooldown like every other ability that got spent.
Or you hit the physical part of the attack. Now the RNG calculator comes up. Roll a 1d1000. Apply opponent's gear resistances. 1-200 you 'fumble'. Your cc is halved or softened ala my original expansions of those options. 201-1000 the stun lands. Same rng system, but the action combat serves as the full fizzle where as the fumble still delivers on the gear stats and adaptation features you have expressed a desire for.
What do you pro-rng people think?
I'm not sure if i'm getting you but i don't think people are talking about a case where there is one ability you need to land to win a fight if that is what you are implying.
In a fight, you usually make a plan on how to use your abilities. If some of your abilities have a chance of not working, then it's hard to plan around that. When one of your abilities doesn't work, you are at a disadvantage, not because of anything you did, but because a dice roll didn't land in your favor.
A place that doesn't usually have rng is healing. Do you think heals should have an rng chance of not healing? Would it be fun if the tank of your raid died because rng decided the last few heals would fail? This is the feeling people are talking about. If heals were rng, then i'd imagine you would find it frustrating if you did a boss's mechanics right but lost because the rng wasn't on your side.
Heals usually don't have a rng chance for "apply or miss" because it follows the RPG logical idea that "you and your allies will not try to escape from your own heal", even tho heals usually have Critical Heal chance RNG.
Aren't we all sinners?
I have played games where you can fail to cast your spells (including your heals) but that isn't my point. I'm talking about.a situation where you can fail an encounter because something crucial doesn't happen when you need it to because of rng.
Instead of trying to say it's not a thing, think about it. How would you feel if you failed a raid because your healing spells failed because of rng and your tank died? When the first heal failed would you having to "adapt" feel rewarding?
Yeah 6 second stun for one ability in PvP is ridiculous.
Anyway, my point is that there's already a tried and true combat system for CCs that is better than just rng dice rolls, regardless of the length of the stuns.
In general, no.
However, the specific post I was replying to was saying exactly that.
If the outcome of any encounter is decided by one case of RNG, as the poster I replied to suggested,
the issue is with that one thing the RNG was attached to being too strong, not the fact or was attached to RNG.
That as a statement isnt directed at everyone that is for RNG, only those that think one roll of the dice can determine the outcome of a fight. Those that dont think that is the case should already agree with the specific statement, even if they dont want RNG.
It is/can be a thing, just a extremely rare thing for logical reasons, even tho certainly a "exception to the rule" it seems interesting, a name of any of those games comes to mind?
Would feel bad? Hell Yeah.
Especially because it would not make a logical sense for your ally to evade your heal.
Having to adapt no.
Pulling off the adaptation, Definitely, as i would've dealt with an unpredictable outcome, and that takes adaptability skill.
Even tho i would still be mad as a TT heal doesn't make any logical sense to fail at all.
Aren't we all sinners?
I like the concept, but would want a possibility in that 1/1000 then 1/6 (or whatever) for a full miss. Lots of room for mitigation. Lots of room for a glancing impact, but always a non-zero chance to miss.
But that’s just my perspective.
If a raid failed solely because of a 1/10000 chance to miss a heal, actually missed and you weren’t able to recover, 2 thoughts:
1. You’re not ready (for whatever reason) for that content.
2. The risk for variances is accepted by walking into the raid, and to mitigate that risk requires a higher level of planning, gearing, communication, flexibility, adaptability, and thinking on your feet. How is that a bad thing?
Indeed.
As I have said many times, all RNG should be subject to an opposed roll. Your stat at making a thing happen vs your targets stat at stopping the thing happening.
In order for heals to be able to fail, that would require players have a stat that functions as a stat to make heals fail.
That makes no sense to have.
Yes. That was sarcasm.
Alpha One had Stuns - which means there were hard ccs.
I feel like there should be no base chance to miss a CC, or heal or even hit. I think most games remove the hit stat for a reason, it tends to be a boring stat to have to optimize around. I would rather hit for less, than not at all. If CC is really broken, then I would rather it not be tuned around a chance to miss and rather have its duration tuned or DR adjusted.
I am on the fence about a dodge/parry/block stat that works in PvP.
I am fully on board with spells that would make missing/blocking/dodge, etc. happen. IE:
Necromancer curse that you place on an enemy for X seconds that gives a 15% chance for heals to not be effective on an X min CD.
A rogue evasion, that would block physical-based stuns and snares for X seconds on an X min CD. Or a spellmancer's magic shield that reflects the next spell. etc..
I think skills like these balance out RNG and player agency. Allowing for options for meaningful counterplay, but also some luck-based combat. (Maybe the necromancer put that anti-heal curse on me a rogue, but I have a bunch of movement skills up, so I can kite for the duration of the buff. Or the enemy team plans a stun for me while it's up, to try and force my healer to use mana to try and have a chance of me surviving.)
Welcome to the ever continuing RNG conversation.
I’m a little confused with your points. Could you help me understand where ‘luck-based combat’ comes into play when it seems like you want to remove RNG from the equation?
Thanks haha, I have been trying to avoid it for a while, since I haven't read the 500 pages, but I figured I'd try to hope in for at least a little bit.
My "luck-based combat" would be from the dodge/parry/miss etc. spells placed on a target for a short duration.
IE: Necromancer places a debuff on my dps group member that makes heals have a 15% chance to miss. I am a healer and low on mana. The group member is super low and will prob die if I don't land any heal on him before the debuff wears off. In this case, I can't wait out the debuff to guarantee my heals hit. So I start spamming heals to keep them alive, hoping I get lucky and that my heals don't miss with that 15% debuff.
The difference to me with this and just base RNG is that:
1.) I don't think this type of scenario would be fun 24/7
2.) If that debuff has a 1.5 min cd, I know for that next amount of time, I can worry less about my heals missing, be more aggressive with heals, etc. Basically, I strategize around the cooldown. Where with RNG I cant strategize at all.
Let me know if that makes sense, I could be wording it poorly.
(Also figure it should be noted, I am mainly a competitive PvE player, so I am not as experienced with PvP: For WoW people: I have only gotten 2100 in RBGs and 1950 in 2s).
In the other hand, if you are fine with missing sometimes, but really like hitting big when you do hit, you can gear up for that instead.
It gives players more options, allowing you to gear and spec appropriate to how you want to play the game.
I fail to see what is wrong with that, from any perspective.
True I can see that and how it would allow for player agency. I'm not terribly opposed to a hit stat/gear for sure. I think my opposition to it is based on WoW PvE experience, where I have to sacrifice stats to get hit.
I think it just boils down to, for me, it is a kind of boring choice on deciding whether I want to hit or not. But I can obviously see how, just because it's a boring/less interesting choice for me, others could like the trade off.
I am curious how the majority of players feel about the hit stat/gear.
If it's an Action Combat Stun... The big part of what determines whether the Stun "fumbles" instead of hits...with regard to RNG... are the stats. If the attacking character has low Dex, we should expect the Stun might actually "fumble".
Just because the attacking player has excellent twitch skills does not mean their character has decent Dex.
Especially if the target character has excellent Dex, we should still expect the RNG to kick in an Evade. Or if excellent Constitution, the target character might resist.
Though, we have to take into a account that RNG is much less of a factor for Action skills as compared to Tab Target skills.
The player with excellent twitch skills does get some reward for having excellent twitch skills - it just doesn't completely negate RNG.
RNG isn't negated in the currently proposed model. Gear resistance and stats apply in the proposed model.
'If it's an Action Combat Stun... The big part of what determines whether the Stun "fumbles" instead of hits...with regard to RNG... are the stats.'
The nuance you might be missing is that a physical miss is a full miss. The player's skill is tested. The fumble is an RNG partial miss. The character executed the move imperfectly. A success is where both you and your character succeeded. You are rewarded with the abilities full effect.
Whether or not this model fits Intrepid's model is not yet known. Your beaten dead horse of a Jeffery Bard quote does not specify how the rng applies to the action combat hit. This is a proposal to meet in the middle. So I am asking your /opinion/ on a possible implementation.
It sounds a lot like 'no I don't like this model because I am an rng purest.'
General statement while discussing Ashes. That wasn't specifically referring to your suggestion.
Edit: Spelling mistakes.
The RNG for a fumble depends on the attacking character's Dex.
But, really, for the most part, all character stats v character stats being equal, if the attacking player hits with action ability, the action ability should hit 99% of the time unless the attacking character has very low Dex.
I don't know how that can be described as an "RNG purest" since, in Jeffery's model, Action skills considerably negate RNG. That negation just isn't zero.
1: I'm not sure more compromise is needed. True.
2: But, the nuance I feel I'm missing is the difference between a fizzle and a resist.
I think if the attacking player's character has decent Dex, the attack should not fizzle 99% of the time if it's an action ability that hits via player twitch skills. Unless the target character has much higher Dex and Evade or a very high Constitution and very high Disable Resistance. But, then it's not because the attacker fumbled or fizzled, it's because the target Evaded or Resisted.
I wouldn't say I'm an RNG purest - but I have said, push come to shove, character build should trump player twitch skills in an RPG.
@JamesSunderland is the only other person I technically am waiting on an opinion irt it. But I expect a similar response as CROW3's
In an RPG character v character is more important than player twitch skills v player twitch skills.
If all defenses against action abilities are action abilities, then the games combat is not really hybrid.
I'm not giving any solution to this - as this has been the aspect of hybrid combat that I consider the hardest to resolve.