I'm really curious as to how you mentally model TTK. Like in WoW, two hybrids classes could potentially duel each other for minutes if they play around each other's outplays / tricks and defend properly, but if they fail to do that the fight can be over in ~20 seconds.
I've seen WoW arena matches between the same 2 teams go 10+ minutes and then next match someone gets blown up in 8 seconds because they got greedy and didn't think they needed to exchange a defensive for someone else's offensive.
How do you reason about TTK when you think about something like arena 3v3 where you may have a tank/mage/cleric vs tank/mage/cleric?
Or cleric/cleric/cleric vs cleric/cleric/cleric that could go on indefinitely.
The sentiment about table top turn based rpg with dices sounds correct, though.
Big part of friction is pious adherence to archaic mechanics of old games on some people. Who are unwilling to ask why they exist. As the position gets cornered either people start dismissing the questioning or double down on absurdities. Like tripping while walking is okey. Or how non rng mechanics cannot be balanced.
There is a difference between adhering to mechanics of old games because that is what has always been done, and adhering to mechanics of old games because that is the best way to do it.
Tripping while walking is just stupid. There is no reason to add that to a game - it is un-fun and adds no value to the game.
Having resistible hard CC's has a place though. It has a reason to exist.
What has not been demonstrated, if we follow through on your thinking here, is a valid and good reason to remove resist chances on hard CC. There is no reason at all to drop what has been done before if there is no demonstrable reason to do so.
Some people suggest that because it basically "feels bad man" if your CC is resisted, that is a reason to not have resists. Thing is, it may feel bad to you, but it feels pretty damn good for the person that resisted it, so that balances out making that a non-starter as a reason.
Some people suggest it adds to player skill. They have not been able to explain how rendering your opponent unable to move for a defined time period via pressing one button is any kind of representation of "player skill", and have also just basically said "no you!" when faced with the notion that being able to overcome an unexpected resist on your CC and as such having to alter your plans on the fly is a real and actual demonstration of player ability.
Some people suggest that they would rather have active abilities to break CC as that fits their desired gameplay style better - yet these people can't come up with a response to the notion that you can have both active and passive (ie, CC resist) in the same combat system.
At best, the argument to remove RNG from hard CC's in an MMO is unfinished. Rather than trying to address specific points, people wanting it removed over the past few threads have basically just been using bigger and bigger words to write bigger and bigger posts that all amount to the same general points above, and then getting their friends to create an account to back them up because they can't seem to find their point in all their drivel.
If Ashes were turn based, I would actually be more ok with un-resistible CC's. Not completely ok with it, but more ok with it. This is because turn based games give players the ability to react in their own time, and one of the key player groups that resistible hard CC's (with opposed rolls so that players can have an influence in to the outcome on both sides) would benefit are the people with slightly slower reactions either in general, or while focused on other tasks (say, harvesting).
Such people increasing their resistance to CC gives them a chance at increasing the reaction time they need by a second or so (the time it takes their attacker to adjust for their stun not landing).
This is an inherently good thing for a game like Ashes, as it brings more players up to a point where they are competitive with a larger segment of the games population - something none of the suggestions for people wanting to remove RNG completely from hard CC's manages to do.
Maybe we need to add blue shells. When someone starts winning, there is a percent rng chance for a blue shell to fly overhead of the winning player and explode. That's the only fair way to have open world PvP.
Very funny idea , but in MMORPGs i would imagine catch-up mechanics as passive skills with things like:
For a RNG setting: When bellow 33%-40% HP, provides a buff that:
Rouges: Gain 20% critical chance and/or chance to evade
Fighters: Gain 20% CC resistance/chance to apply
Tankers: Gain 20% Block Chance or chance to half incoming damage
Healers: Gain 20% Heal critical chance
For a Non-RNG setting: When bellow 33%-40% HP, provides a buff that:
Rouges: You are guaranteed to deal double damage the next attack skill you use and/or
You are guaranteed to avoid the next skill that would hit you.
Fighters: Gain 20% less received CC duration on you and 20% more applied CC duration
Tankers: Takes 20% less incoming damage.
Healers: Gain 20% more healing power
For a Hybrid setting: When bellow 33%-40% HP, provides a buff that:
Rouges: Gain 10% critical chance and/or chance to evade also, you are guaranteed to deal 50% more damage the next attack skill you use and/or you are guaranteed to take 50% less damage the next skill that would hit you.
Fighters: Gain 10% CC resistance/chance to apply also, gain 10% less received CC duration on you and 10% more applied CC duration.
Tankers: 10% Block Chance and/or chance to half incoming damage also, takes 10% less incoming damage.
Healers: Gain 10% Heal critical chance and 10% more healing power.
I'm really curious as to how you mentally model TTK. Like in WoW, two hybrids classes could potentially duel each other for minutes if they play around each other's outplays / tricks and defend properly, but if they fail to do that the fight can be over in ~20 seconds.
I've seen WoW arena matches between the same 2 teams go 10+ minutes and then next match someone gets blown up in 8 seconds because they got greedy and didn't think they needed to exchange a defensive for someone else's offensive.
How do you reason about TTK when you think about something like arena 3v3 where you may have a tank/mage/cleric vs tank/mage/cleric?
Or cleric/cleric/cleric vs cleric/cleric/cleric that could go on indefinitely.
There is no absolute or definitive method of modeling TTK for complex games like MMORPGs,
But i believe it is necessary to think in terms of average and taking in consideration a nice amount of data to back it, it is also important to simplify the combat for precise results like reducing the amount of variables like, number of times required to hit with a certain skill to kill, time fleeing, number of outplays, extreme examples(like glass cannon rouges 2-3 shoting each other or Healer vs Healer eternal fight)(fighter vs fighter would probably be the best base) and etc.
For 3v3 it gets way harder because you have to account for class to class interaction 3 times. and i would certainly not think about a unreasonable cleric/cleric/cleric vs cleric/cleric/cleric scenario as a priority.
I'm really curious as to how you mentally model TTK. Like in WoW, two hybrids classes could potentially duel each other for minutes if they play around each other's outplays / tricks and defend properly, but if they fail to do that the fight can be over in ~20 seconds.
I've seen WoW arena matches between the same 2 teams go 10+ minutes and then next match someone gets blown up in 8 seconds because they got greedy and didn't think they needed to exchange a defensive for someone else's offensive.
How do you reason about TTK when you think about something like arena 3v3 where you may have a tank/mage/cleric vs tank/mage/cleric?
Or cleric/cleric/cleric vs cleric/cleric/cleric that could go on indefinitely.
There is no absolute or definitive method of modeling TTK for complex games like MMORPGs,
But i believe it is necessary to think in terms of average and taking in consideration a nice amount of data to back it, it is also important to simplify the combat for precise results like reducing the amount of variables like, number of times required to hit with a certain skill to kill, time fleeing, number of outplays, extreme examples(like glass cannon rouges 2-3 shoting each other or Healer vs Healer eternal fight)(fighter vs fighter would probably be the best base) and etc.
For 3v3 it gets way harder because you have to account for class to class interaction 3 times. and i would certainly not think about a unreasonable cleric/cleric/cleric vs cleric/cleric/cleric scenario as a priority.
Indeed.
TTK in an MMO should be thought of as a tool rather than as a rule.
It exists as a means to communicate an idea to others.
Steven has said he wants a TTK of around 30 seconds - if we assume a TTK is a cool in communication, that gives us a rough idea of how long we can expect PvP fights in general to last.
If we think of TTK as a rule, that same statement just leaves us with more questions.
Steven has said he wants a TTK of around 30 seconds - if we assume a TTK is a cool in communication, that gives us a rough idea of how long we can expect PvP fights in general to last.
We need to qualify this as well. I'm guessing this is a 1v1 all-things-being-equal yardstick. Considering the vast majority of fights will not be this neat, we should be wary using it as a king's standard.
Comments
I've seen WoW arena matches between the same 2 teams go 10+ minutes and then next match someone gets blown up in 8 seconds because they got greedy and didn't think they needed to exchange a defensive for someone else's offensive.
How do you reason about TTK when you think about something like arena 3v3 where you may have a tank/mage/cleric vs tank/mage/cleric?
Or cleric/cleric/cleric vs cleric/cleric/cleric that could go on indefinitely.
Tripping while walking is just stupid. There is no reason to add that to a game - it is un-fun and adds no value to the game.
Having resistible hard CC's has a place though. It has a reason to exist.
What has not been demonstrated, if we follow through on your thinking here, is a valid and good reason to remove resist chances on hard CC. There is no reason at all to drop what has been done before if there is no demonstrable reason to do so.
Some people suggest that because it basically "feels bad man" if your CC is resisted, that is a reason to not have resists. Thing is, it may feel bad to you, but it feels pretty damn good for the person that resisted it, so that balances out making that a non-starter as a reason.
Some people suggest it adds to player skill. They have not been able to explain how rendering your opponent unable to move for a defined time period via pressing one button is any kind of representation of "player skill", and have also just basically said "no you!" when faced with the notion that being able to overcome an unexpected resist on your CC and as such having to alter your plans on the fly is a real and actual demonstration of player ability.
Some people suggest that they would rather have active abilities to break CC as that fits their desired gameplay style better - yet these people can't come up with a response to the notion that you can have both active and passive (ie, CC resist) in the same combat system.
At best, the argument to remove RNG from hard CC's in an MMO is unfinished. Rather than trying to address specific points, people wanting it removed over the past few threads have basically just been using bigger and bigger words to write bigger and bigger posts that all amount to the same general points above, and then getting their friends to create an account to back them up because they can't seem to find their point in all their drivel.
If Ashes were turn based, I would actually be more ok with un-resistible CC's. Not completely ok with it, but more ok with it. This is because turn based games give players the ability to react in their own time, and one of the key player groups that resistible hard CC's (with opposed rolls so that players can have an influence in to the outcome on both sides) would benefit are the people with slightly slower reactions either in general, or while focused on other tasks (say, harvesting).
Such people increasing their resistance to CC gives them a chance at increasing the reaction time they need by a second or so (the time it takes their attacker to adjust for their stun not landing).
This is an inherently good thing for a game like Ashes, as it brings more players up to a point where they are competitive with a larger segment of the games population - something none of the suggestions for people wanting to remove RNG completely from hard CC's manages to do.
Very funny idea
For a RNG setting: When bellow 33%-40% HP, provides a buff that:
For a Non-RNG setting: When bellow 33%-40% HP, provides a buff that:
For a Hybrid setting: When bellow 33%-40% HP, provides a buff that:
Aren't we all sinners?
There is no absolute or definitive method of modeling TTK for complex games like MMORPGs,
But i believe it is necessary to think in terms of average and taking in consideration a nice amount of data to back it, it is also important to simplify the combat for precise results like reducing the amount of variables like, number of times required to hit with a certain skill to kill, time fleeing, number of outplays, extreme examples(like glass cannon rouges 2-3 shoting each other or Healer vs Healer eternal fight)(fighter vs fighter would probably be the best base) and etc.
For 3v3 it gets way harder because you have to account for class to class interaction 3 times. and i would certainly not think about a unreasonable cleric/cleric/cleric vs cleric/cleric/cleric scenario as a priority.
Aren't we all sinners?
Indeed.
TTK in an MMO should be thought of as a tool rather than as a rule.
It exists as a means to communicate an idea to others.
Steven has said he wants a TTK of around 30 seconds - if we assume a TTK is a cool in communication, that gives us a rough idea of how long we can expect PvP fights in general to last.
If we think of TTK as a rule, that same statement just leaves us with more questions.
We need to qualify this as well. I'm guessing this is a 1v1 all-things-being-equal yardstick. Considering the vast majority of fights will not be this neat, we should be wary using it as a king's standard.