Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.

Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Crowd control should not be based on RNG

1679111214

Comments

  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    JustVine wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    CROW3 wrote: »
    JustVine wrote: »
    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.

    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.
    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    bigepeen wrote: »
    Between two equally skilled players 1v1, the battle is decided by luck if you're using a CC rng system.

    WoW's PvP system is just plain bad.

    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.
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    JustVine wrote: »
    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.

    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'?

    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    CROW3 wrote: »
    JustVine wrote: »
    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.

    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?

    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    Noaani wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • edited September 2021
    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.
    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    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.

    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?
  • Noaani wrote: »
    bigepeen wrote: »
    Between two equally skilled players 1v1, the battle is decided by luck if you're using a CC rng system.

    WoW's PvP system is just plain bad.

    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.

    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.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    Noaani wrote: »
    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.

    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 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.
  • edited September 2021
    I have played games where you can fail to cast your spells (including your heals) but that isn't my point.
    Instead of trying to say it's not a thing,

    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?
    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.

    think about it. How would you feel if you failed a raid because your healing spells failed because of rng and your tank died?

    Would feel bad? Hell Yeah.
    Especially because it would not make a logical sense for your ally to evade your heal.
    When the first heal failed would you having to "adapt" feel rewarding?

    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.

    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    JustVine wrote: »

    What do you pro-rng people think?

    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.


    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?

    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?

    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Even tho would still be mad as a TT heal doesn't make any logical sense to fail at all.

    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.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    Magic Man wrote: »
    Nope, stun is hard CC.
    LMAO
    Yes. That was sarcasm.
    Alpha One had Stuns - which means there were hard ccs.
  • XerheartXerheart Member, Alpha Two
    I am kinda late to this discussion so my apologizes if I repeat anything:

    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.)
  • SirChancelotSirChancelot Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Break out gameplay
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    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?
    Same way I feel when I "roll a 1" in any RPG.

  • bigepeenbigepeen Member
    edited September 2021
    . nvm
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    Xerheart wrote: »
    I am kinda late to this discussion so my apologizes if I repeat anything:

    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?

    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • XerheartXerheart Member, Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    CROW3 wrote: »

    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).
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Xerheart wrote: »
    I don't think this type of scenario would be fun 24/7
    One of the benefits of opposed rolls is that the developers could make it so that if you really hate misses,and would rather hit for less but guarantee each hit, you can gear up to make that close to a reality.

    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.
  • XerheartXerheart Member, Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    Noaani wrote: »
    One of the benefits of opposed rolls is that the developers could make it so that if you really hate misses,and would rather hit for less but guarantee each hit, you can gear up to make that close to a reality.

    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.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    JustVine wrote: »
    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?
    Mmmmn. I think I'm missing some nuance.

    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.
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    JustVine wrote: »
    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?
    Mmmmn. I think I'm missing some nuance.

    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.'



    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    JustVine wrote: »
    RNG isn't negated in the currently proposed model. Gear resistance and stats apply in the proposed model.
    Right. Sorry. I was not meaning to convey that you suggested RNG should be completely negated. I was just including the reminder that in the Ashes concept players do get rewarded for their excellent twitch skills.
    General statement while discussing Ashes. That wasn't specifically referring to your suggestion.
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    I heard a while ago RNG isn't applied in Action Combat, because, in Action Combat you can miss through incompetence. There would be little point in having two miss functions. Hard CC is classed as Action Combat last I heard, thus, no rng would be applied to the active combat. If you expect a quote I can't be bothered to find one. I also could be wrong because changes have happened to the combat iteration.

    Edit: Spelling mistakes.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    JustVine wrote: »
    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.
    "Full effects" still have to account for the target character.
    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.

    JustVine wrote: »
    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.'
    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.
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    Mk so both you and CROW3 have effectively gone 'no I want stun to have a binary fail option np matter what' despite the fact that player skill already provides that.

    @JamesSunderland is the only other person I technically am waiting on an opinion irt it. But I expect a similar response as CROW3's
    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    It's about character build; not player twitch skills.
    In an RPG character v character is more important than player twitch skills v player twitch skills.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    JustVine wrote: »
    Mk so both you and CROW3 have effectively gone 'no I want stun to have a binary fail option np matter what' despite the fact that player skill already provides that.
    From the defenders perspective, there needs to be a non-action combat defense to everything.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.