This should be at the fore-front of concern, when attempting balancing in games. Yours truly is definitely someone who values fun > balance.
I have fun when the game is balanced though. I don't enjoy being shit on because someone has a numerical advantage but has zero acumen in any of the proficiencies needed to be successful at PvP.
I have fun when the game is balanced though. I don't enjoy being shit on because someone has a numerical advantage but has zero acumen in any of the proficiencies needed to be successful at PvP.
Is it somehow genuinely your concern that only balance can be fun?
If you had to choose between 1 *or* the other, which should really take precendence?
Again, yours truly would emphasize fun > balance. In an ideal world? We shouldn't have to choose; it should be balance = fun.
But what if it doesn't? Which should take precendence?
I have fun when the game is balanced though. I don't enjoy being shit on because someone has a numerical advantage but has zero acumen in any of the proficiencies needed to be successful at PvP.
Is it somehow genuinely your concern that only balance can be fun?
If you had to choose between 1 *or* the other, which should really take precendence?
Again, yours truly would emphasize fun > balance. In an ideal world? We shouldn't have to choose; it should be balance = fun.
But what if it doesn't? Which should take precendence?
In case it matters to avoid derailing your thread, this was never my point.
A thing that isn't engaging and therefore ABLE to fit the definition of fun for one side of the contest isn't fun and therefore how balanced it is is irrelevant.
I also believe that balance is vital for fun, I disagree that one can choose to have unbalanced things be fun because by the nature of being 'unbalanced' they are not fun for someone, usually.
I was attempting to argue against the concept presented by Dolyem that a thing which is not engaging or not fun should be considered as reasonable based on the fact that it COULD be balanced.
@Depraved of course, all classes should able to PvP otherwise the game will suffer serious balancing issues
The view on which the warrior is entitled to be the top dog on duels is just poor
All classes should be able to duel and be as effective as any other class
The difference is who can survive, it's a combination of tanking, dps, healing, sustain, dots, power, strategy and knowing the other guy's build and he can do with it
Inta kills is just shit game design, In WoW i had an orc rogue, undead warlock and gnome mage... because WoW is an inferior game I had those builds that can kill certain people with a combo and then I had to avoid certain builds.... so my gameplay was pretty much attached into certain scenarios
In GW2 my main is a Mechanist, it's amazing because I can tweak all styles of gameplay with it, this is by far the most fun build among all games ever. I can make power builds, tank build that can take power strike bosses, can be a top healer, can support, I can do anything literally... it is all about the skill trees, which skills, which sigils, which weapons and how I manage all that against each target
GW2 pvp is way more engaging than WoW pvp
you didn't answer me T_T
we arent talking about all classes being able to pvp or not. every class has a different playstyle with strength and weaknesses. I'm asking if the rogue should be able to face their opponents face on like a warrior can, and there is a reason for that question which ill explain after you answer me.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The balance comes from group play or one on one of same class play.
If a tank can beat a ranger at range, that is not balance, something is wrong.
If a ranger can beat a tank at close range, that is not balance, something is wrong.
Let the individual class shine in their given domains and purposes.
Keep their weaknesses.
If you want to pvp or deal damage choose an appropriate class.
If you want to shine at pve, choose an appropriate class.
If you want to play a support class for pvp or pve, don`t expect to be the damage dealer
0
Options
buckwheatMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
My thoughts are that every player should have a fighting chance. I have played many MMO's and dyeing to a mob of players that have nothing better to do then run around and cause griefing just makes the MMO lose player base really fast and die itself. My proposal is that there is no 1 shot kill, no infinite crowd control loop to keep you there so you die. The proposal is that it should take some time to kill someone. If they do not want to fight and they decide to run, they should have the chance to get away. Nothing worse then to be minding your own business and some clown and his clown friends stun lock you and within seconds your dead and you had no chance or choice. PvP is fun when you have a fighting chance and you feel like the battle could go either way, not just one sided.
this game isnt about 1 v1 fighting chance. It's a co-op pvp. You go hunting alone, expect to be attacked.
It's been establish balance will be based on 8v8 scenerios. So expect broken 1v1 matches. The game isnt revolve around 1v1
Maybe so, but whereas the benefit of 'not balancing for 1v1' is MAYBE 'having more interesting group battles', the downside is that a lot of people will just not play or get sick of it quickly.
Whereas 'general balance' at the 1v1 level is pretty unlikely to lead to unbalanced 8v8 while retaining all those players and keeping them engaged.
There are definitely some people who actively want the 1v1 to be 'innately unbalanced', but so far they SEEM like the minority to me. Therefore this specific topic should probably be able to stand on its own merits if most of the community would like effort made toward 1v1 balance such as this.
everything about this game is forcing social interaction. There will be solo content, and things can be done solo but they are not focus on solo players and solo pvp. They want ppl to group and work together.
If ppl can handle themselves well alone, then ppl will go gathering alone, dungeon alone, solo pve - but if ur class cant handle being alone - you're be travelling with groups. Ppl will gather together, hunt together, dungeon together for survival.
Now the strong single pvp class is out-numbered - aoc wants group content and this reinforces those aspects. As steven has stated - this game isnt for everyone. He is influenced by L2 gameplay and has people from EQ. He is also influence by pathfinder - all of which is a co-op group content games.
{UPK} United Player Killer - All your loot belongs to us.
everything about this game is forcing social interaction. There will be solo content, and things can be done solo but they are not focus on solo players and solo pvp. They want ppl to group and work together.
If ppl can handle themselves well alone, then ppl will go gathering alone, dungeon alone, solo pve - but if ur class cant handle being alone - you're be travelling with groups. Ppl will gather together, hunt together, dungeon together for survival.
Now the strong single pvp class is out-numbered - aoc wants group content and this reinforces those aspects. As steven has stated - this game isnt for everyone. He is influenced by L2 gameplay and has people from EQ. He is also influence by pathfinder - all of which is a co-op group content games.
I feel you missed the point of what I was saying, but I'll disengage after trying one more time to boil it down to the single point.
"1v1 Balance such as 'not dying in one hit' has very little to do with this."
If a Stealthed Rogue can oneshot your Mage, then being in a group will not change this, generally. Therefore it would be better that your mage is not Oneshot, so that your group would get a chance to do something about it other than maybe revenge-killing the Rogue.
everything about this game is forcing social interaction. There will be solo content, and things can be done solo but they are not focus on solo players and solo pvp. They want ppl to group and work together.
If ppl can handle themselves well alone, then ppl will go gathering alone, dungeon alone, solo pve - but if ur class cant handle being alone - you're be travelling with groups. Ppl will gather together, hunt together, dungeon together for survival.
Now the strong single pvp class is out-numbered - aoc wants group content and this reinforces those aspects. As steven has stated - this game isnt for everyone. He is influenced by L2 gameplay and has people from EQ. He is also influence by pathfinder - all of which is a co-op group content games.
I feel you missed the point of what I was saying, but I'll disengage after trying one more time to boil it down to the single point.
"1v1 Balance such as 'not dying in one hit' has very little to do with this."
If a Stealthed Rogue can oneshot your Mage, then being in a group will not change this, generally. Therefore it would be better that your mage is not Oneshot, so that your group would get a chance to do something about it other than maybe revenge-killing the Rogue.
To counter this even though you're not wrong, you can just as easily establish timed defensive abilities to counter high-burst damage abilities such as Shields and what not. Makes timing important. And to offer a balance that leans more towards what you are saying, you could have a sound-off just before a high burst attack, at least alarming players of an incoming attack. But it may or may not be necessary.
everything about this game is forcing social interaction. There will be solo content, and things can be done solo but they are not focus on solo players and solo pvp. They want ppl to group and work together.
If ppl can handle themselves well alone, then ppl will go gathering alone, dungeon alone, solo pve - but if ur class cant handle being alone - you're be travelling with groups. Ppl will gather together, hunt together, dungeon together for survival.
Now the strong single pvp class is out-numbered - aoc wants group content and this reinforces those aspects. As steven has stated - this game isnt for everyone. He is influenced by L2 gameplay and has people from EQ. He is also influence by pathfinder - all of which is a co-op group content games.
I feel you missed the point of what I was saying, but I'll disengage after trying one more time to boil it down to the single point.
"1v1 Balance such as 'not dying in one hit' has very little to do with this."
If a Stealthed Rogue can oneshot your Mage, then being in a group will not change this, generally. Therefore it would be better that your mage is not Oneshot, so that your group would get a chance to do something about it other than maybe revenge-killing the Rogue.
To counter this even though you're not wrong, you can just as easily establish timed defensive abilities to counter high-burst damage abilities such as Shields and what not. Makes timing important. And to offer a balance that leans more towards what you are saying, you could have a sound-off just before a high burst attack, at least alarming players of an incoming attack. But it may or may not be necessary.
Once again I find myself with nothing useful to contribute to this point, but data is noted.
@Tyranthraxus would have to clarify any opinions on it, as the scenario given isn't one that clarifies if such abilities exist to be used, or would be reasonable to use or react with, or such.
everything about this game is forcing social interaction. There will be solo content, and things can be done solo but they are not focus on solo players and solo pvp. They want ppl to group and work together.
If ppl can handle themselves well alone, then ppl will go gathering alone, dungeon alone, solo pve - but if ur class cant handle being alone - you're be travelling with groups. Ppl will gather together, hunt together, dungeon together for survival.
Now the strong single pvp class is out-numbered - aoc wants group content and this reinforces those aspects. As steven has stated - this game isnt for everyone. He is influenced by L2 gameplay and has people from EQ. He is also influence by pathfinder - all of which is a co-op group content games.
I feel you missed the point of what I was saying, but I'll disengage after trying one more time to boil it down to the single point.
"1v1 Balance such as 'not dying in one hit' has very little to do with this."
If a Stealthed Rogue can oneshot your Mage, then being in a group will not change this, generally. Therefore it would be better that your mage is not Oneshot, so that your group would get a chance to do something about it other than maybe revenge-killing the Rogue.
To counter this even though you're not wrong, you can just as easily establish timed defensive abilities to counter high-burst damage abilities such as Shields and what not. Makes timing important. And to offer a balance that leans more towards what you are saying, you could have a sound-off just before a high burst attack, at least alarming players of an incoming attack. But it may or may not be necessary.
Once again I find myself with nothing useful to contribute to this point, but data is noted.
@Tyranthraxus would have to clarify any opinions on it, as the scenario given isn't one that clarifies if such abilities exist to be used, or would be reasonable to use or react with, or such.
For sure. Just tossing out things I think of. Everything being discussed is theoretical anyway. It all depends on what abilities each class also has in their kit.
everything about this game is forcing social interaction. There will be solo content, and things can be done solo but they are not focus on solo players and solo pvp. They want ppl to group and work together.
If ppl can handle themselves well alone, then ppl will go gathering alone, dungeon alone, solo pve - but if ur class cant handle being alone - you're be travelling with groups. Ppl will gather together, hunt together, dungeon together for survival.
Now the strong single pvp class is out-numbered - aoc wants group content and this reinforces those aspects. As steven has stated - this game isnt for everyone. He is influenced by L2 gameplay and has people from EQ. He is also influence by pathfinder - all of which is a co-op group content games.
I feel you missed the point of what I was saying, but I'll disengage after trying one more time to boil it down to the single point.
"1v1 Balance such as 'not dying in one hit' has very little to do with this."
If a Stealthed Rogue can oneshot your Mage, then being in a group will not change this, generally. Therefore it would be better that your mage is not Oneshot, so that your group would get a chance to do something about it other than maybe revenge-killing the Rogue.
didnt they mentioned time to kill 30-60sec. so one shot arent possible.
Also note - the initiator on a green player will not be able to use any form of CC - thus increasing the survivability of the victim and the victim will be able to use CC on a purple.
let's use the same scenerio but this time - your purple/red and a green rogue or a bounty hunter rogue spotted you and sneaks up - CC and burst you down - well too bad. Shouldnt have been purple/red. risk/reward
{UPK} United Player Killer - All your loot belongs to us.
This feels more like a learn to play issue. We have one shot combos on Nightblades in ESO. You're never safe in ESO PvP as there may be a nightblade lurking waiting to strike. To counter you can either use magic shields when you're out in the open or spec into a build with higher physical resistance. I'm a magicka sorcerer (squishiest class in ESO), I don't have this problem because I have strong mag shields, decent max health, and high physical/spell resistance.
"PvP wiLL bE BalANcE fOr 8 vs 8 nOt 1 vs 1" is a poor defence argument in this case. If one party member can be one shot, then suddenly it becomes an imbalanced 7 vs 8 fight. If you argue that both team have, initially, the same chances, it means the crux of group PvP will be about timing. Like in DAoC when it was about which team could mezz/stun the other first and then launch massive AoE or Point Blank AoE. PvP being balanced for groups rather than 1 vs 1 is not a magic argument.
TTK also has its limit too. It's not a hard immunity clock. A character can still be focus-fired and good luck surviving for the targeted 30-60s if a rogue + ranger + mage synchronizing their opening attacks on the same unlucky sob only to have the fighter and tank charge them too. If we want to restrict the debate to kills from stealth, how many rogues do we need working together to down a key opponent? Say the healer. Is it a viable group strategy to have 2-3 rogues while actively looking for groups to gank?
Killing in one hit will make the thief corrupted.
Will it be worth killing the target fast?
True, but only in open world PvP, in all the situations where one is already flagged as a combatant (caravans, prior combat, etc), corruption is not a deterrent and thus one shot possibilities are still a issue.
Oh, this thread brings up another question. Should abilities with synergistic effects apply those effects to a green target? What about a stacking synergy where you might build up some sort of buff or amount of usages of an ability and could then release the final one onto your target?
In other words, should Intrepid worry about some "hidden" combo wombo that could result in a one-shot or do you think that those are just a gimmick that wouldn't really work in a practical application?
This feels more like a learn to play issue. We have one shot combos on Nightblades in ESO. You're never safe in ESO PvP as there may be a nightblade lurking waiting to strike. To counter you can either use magic shields when you're out in the open or spec into a build with higher physical resistance. I'm a magicka sorcerer (squishiest class in ESO), I don't have this problem because I have strong mag shields, decent max health, and high physical/spell resistance.
I'm not sure if the point being made here is "this is okay because it is balanced and fine for the game" or "players who don't counterbuild oneshot characters are noobs that need to git gud" or both.
I think that it might be necessary to clarify which of these you lean towards if 'the other side' of this argument is to respond properly, so please note it, if you don't mind.
As for me, in every scenario where I am talking about it, I'm referring to 'Stealthed Rogue with long-ish buffs to spike their damage using a backstab oneshot on a squishier character from stealth for an instant OR unreactable kill'. This is because I assumed this is what OP was referring to.
So CC is not required, even for greens. I would also personally consider Guild War situations, etc, where you don't have to worry about the opponent ever 'being green to you', which is why I ask for the clarification. I find Guild War scenarios to be the ones where this matters the most in other games.
In case it matters to avoid derailing your thread, this was never my point.
A thing that isn't engaging and therefore ABLE to fit the definition of fun for one side of the contest isn't fun and therefore how balanced it is is irrelevant.
I also believe that balance is vital for fun, I disagree that one can choose to have unbalanced things be fun because by the nature of being 'unbalanced' they are not fun for someone, usually.
I was attempting to argue against the concept presented by Dolyem that a thing which is not engaging or not fun should be considered as reasonable based on the fact that it COULD be balanced.
"Bombazar must fall."
Was quoting @Solvryn on this one. Have always found your perspectives on game-dev to be quite agreeable - ESPECIALLY the perspective that balance doesn't necessarily equate to fun.
Oh, this thread brings up another question. Should abilities with synergistic effects apply those effects to a green target?
Herein lies and opportunity to add additional protections to the un-suspecting ambush victim; Synergistic abilities really should NOT apply to green players. If we're talking PvP and it wasn't the same combat that it was earned in, why should build-up abilities transfer from killing NPC mobs to killing a completely un-suspecting player?
I have fun when the game is balanced though. I don't enjoy being shit on because someone has a numerical advantage but has zero acumen in any of the proficiencies needed to be successful at PvP.
Is it somehow genuinely your concern that only balance can be fun?
If you had to choose between 1 *or* the other, which should really take precendence?
Again, yours truly would emphasize fun > balance. In an ideal world? We shouldn't have to choose; it should be balance = fun.
But what if it doesn't? Which should take precendence?
I guess I'd choose balance, as there may be games out there that I don't enjoy personally no matter how fun they are to others.
Funs subject to an individual, a well-balanced game is on the devs which everyone can experience.
I've had the most fun when games are balanced, because PvP and Logistics are my primary interests and when a game is balanced for the fight it doesn't rob me of my victories. Though my preference is the game is balanced and well-built with PvP and PvE going together and not fighting each other.
Builds that have potential to oneshot from stealth with an unreasonably small or nonexistent telegraph are uninteractive and do not take skill to pilot.
Their success relies entirely on the person person playing the build to time their burst correctly. And, if the defender's build is set up in a way where defensive stats are so high and/or defensives have such a high uptime that they are able to prevent a oneshot that they can't see coming, at all times... that is also uninteractive and skill-less.
For reference, I have a lot of experience at the high end of PvP in multiple games playing builds on both ends of this spectrum. The safest option is to not allow single builds the ability to oneshot from stealth. Oneshotting a low health (25-40%) target makes sense depending on how squishy both players are. But anything higher that should be avoided unless the telegraph is reactable and clear.
In case it matters to avoid derailing your thread, this was never my point.
A thing that isn't engaging and therefore ABLE to fit the definition of fun for one side of the contest isn't fun and therefore how balanced it is is irrelevant.
I also believe that balance is vital for fun, I disagree that one can choose to have unbalanced things be fun because by the nature of being 'unbalanced' they are not fun for someone, usually.
I was attempting to argue against the concept presented by Dolyem that a thing which is not engaging or not fun should be considered as reasonable based on the fact that it COULD be balanced.
"Bombazar must fall."
Was quoting @Solvryn on this one. Have always found your perspectives on game-dev to be quite agreeable - ESPECIALLY the perspective that balance doesn't necessarily equate to fun.
Oh, this thread brings up another question. Should abilities with synergistic effects apply those effects to a green target?
Herein lies and opportunity to add additional protections to the un-suspecting ambush victim; Synergistic abilities really should NOT apply to green players. If we're talking PvP and it wasn't the same combat that it was earned in, why should build-up abilities transfer from killing NPC mobs to killing a completely un-suspecting player?
Noted, thank you.
Moving on with your new point then, I agree that IF Synergies really just boil down to different debuffs/CC then they should not apply to Green players.
However I could easily be convinced that a reasonable Synergy that somehow results in a damage increase for the second attacker that puts a 'stack' on a player, should be allowed. I would still not want it to approach the level of 'lol ur deleted' but I'm sort of okay with high damage here.
This is with a lot of assumptions though, about how one would reasonably design Synergies. So overall, I'm okay with it IF:
1. The initiator is also a melee class (don't care if they have some stealth or not)
2. The ability that puts the 'debuff' on the opponent doesn't do big damage itself
3. The 'debuff' is instantly CONSUMED to do the damage as soon as the synergy is triggered (so you can't have one Fighter >> Two Rogues >> Dead.
There are other similar combinations I'm fine with that lead to big damage because two people, with counterplay options, will have both 'more trouble setting it up' and 'more risk in their positioning', and I mean the type of risk that the opponents will definitely get a chance to capitalize on.
I need to remember to ask if 'all Debuffs' are stopped for Greens or just 'all CC style ones'. I would figure Bleed and Defense Down still work, but I don't know that with certainty.
There aren’t any games that let people 1 shot someone. What usually happens is game mechanics let someone stack multiple attacks so they hit at the same time.
ESO was brought up and it’s a great example. Someone was able to land a heavy attack, ability and proc set at the same time so it would look like a one shot, but was actually 3 abilities at once. That plus because the game engine is broken sometimes you could get off 2 abilities before you’d render making it even worse.
So anyways, asking for 3 abilities instead of one shots doesn’t really make sense.
There aren’t any games that let people 1 shot someone. What usually happens is game mechanics let someone stack multiple attacks so they hit at the same time.
I've seen and done countless one-shots in L2. Rogues and a particular warrior class were very good at those. And sometimes mages would also one-shot someone who was just a bit too low on m.def.
There aren’t any games that let people 1 shot someone. What usually happens is game mechanics let someone stack multiple attacks so they hit at the same time.
I've seen and done countless one-shots in L2. Rogues and a particular warrior class were very good at those. And sometimes mages would also one-shot someone who was just a bit too low on m.def.
Early or late L2?
Mostly trying to figure out whether or not Steven's experience has a chance of aligning with Iskiab's, or if it would have been similar to yours and therefore would come to your conclusion about the point, instead.
It's always so enlightening to see all the different perspectives on gameplay for stuff like this...
Mostly trying to figure out whether or not Steven's experience has a chance of aligning with Iskiab's, or if it would have been similar to yours and therefore would come to your conclusion about the point, instead.
It's always so enlightening to see all the different perspectives on gameplay for stuff like this...
Early and mid updates iirc. Later ones gave a ton of countermeasures and overall hp/def values became higher so one-shots weren't as easy.
I do hope that Steven doesn't go for one-shots in Ashes cause as much as I loved critting someone for x3-5 their health, I'd assume that those people weren't quite as happy about that situation. I was just pointing out that there are in fact games that let you one-shots others. And those classes didn't even need huge debuff stacks or combo wombos. You'd just buff yourself up properly and go kill a few dudes (the crucial buffs usually lasted 30s-1min).
I never played L2, but avoiding what appears to be a one shot isn’t too bad, you just have to consider travel times and don’t put different things on different global cooldowns.
ESO made the mistake of having light/heavy attacks on one GCD and abilities on another so you could combine them in one attack.
Travel times can also contribute if you have slow and fast projectiles. Cast the slow travel time ability first, fast one next and instant damage last and in some games you could get them to hit at the same time.
These are all strategy things that should be encouraged so people can have some burst and is PvP 101 stuff, it just shouldn’t be able to be combined for all someone’s health.
Comments
This should be at the fore-front of concern, when attempting balancing in games. Yours truly is definitely someone who values fun > balance.
I have fun when the game is balanced though. I don't enjoy being shit on because someone has a numerical advantage but has zero acumen in any of the proficiencies needed to be successful at PvP.
Is it somehow genuinely your concern that only balance can be fun?
If you had to choose between 1 *or* the other, which should really take precendence?
Again, yours truly would emphasize fun > balance. In an ideal world? We shouldn't have to choose; it should be balance = fun.
But what if it doesn't? Which should take precendence?
In case it matters to avoid derailing your thread, this was never my point.
A thing that isn't engaging and therefore ABLE to fit the definition of fun for one side of the contest isn't fun and therefore how balanced it is is irrelevant.
I also believe that balance is vital for fun, I disagree that one can choose to have unbalanced things be fun because by the nature of being 'unbalanced' they are not fun for someone, usually.
I was attempting to argue against the concept presented by Dolyem that a thing which is not engaging or not fun should be considered as reasonable based on the fact that it COULD be balanced.
"Bombazar must fall."
you didn't answer me T_T
we arent talking about all classes being able to pvp or not. every class has a different playstyle with strength and weaknesses. I'm asking if the rogue should be able to face their opponents face on like a warrior can, and there is a reason for that question which ill explain after you answer me.
If a tank can beat a ranger at range, that is not balance, something is wrong.
If a ranger can beat a tank at close range, that is not balance, something is wrong.
Let the individual class shine in their given domains and purposes.
Keep their weaknesses.
If you want to pvp or deal damage choose an appropriate class.
If you want to shine at pve, choose an appropriate class.
If you want to play a support class for pvp or pve, don`t expect to be the damage dealer
It's been establish balance will be based on 8v8 scenerios. So expect broken 1v1 matches. The game isnt revolve around 1v1
Maybe so, but whereas the benefit of 'not balancing for 1v1' is MAYBE 'having more interesting group battles', the downside is that a lot of people will just not play or get sick of it quickly.
Whereas 'general balance' at the 1v1 level is pretty unlikely to lead to unbalanced 8v8 while retaining all those players and keeping them engaged.
There are definitely some people who actively want the 1v1 to be 'innately unbalanced', but so far they SEEM like the minority to me. Therefore this specific topic should probably be able to stand on its own merits if most of the community would like effort made toward 1v1 balance such as this.
If ppl can handle themselves well alone, then ppl will go gathering alone, dungeon alone, solo pve - but if ur class cant handle being alone - you're be travelling with groups. Ppl will gather together, hunt together, dungeon together for survival.
Now the strong single pvp class is out-numbered - aoc wants group content and this reinforces those aspects. As steven has stated - this game isnt for everyone. He is influenced by L2 gameplay and has people from EQ. He is also influence by pathfinder - all of which is a co-op group content games.
I feel you missed the point of what I was saying, but I'll disengage after trying one more time to boil it down to the single point.
"1v1 Balance such as 'not dying in one hit' has very little to do with this."
If a Stealthed Rogue can oneshot your Mage, then being in a group will not change this, generally. Therefore it would be better that your mage is not Oneshot, so that your group would get a chance to do something about it other than maybe revenge-killing the Rogue.
To counter this even though you're not wrong, you can just as easily establish timed defensive abilities to counter high-burst damage abilities such as Shields and what not. Makes timing important. And to offer a balance that leans more towards what you are saying, you could have a sound-off just before a high burst attack, at least alarming players of an incoming attack. But it may or may not be necessary.
Once again I find myself with nothing useful to contribute to this point, but data is noted.
@Tyranthraxus would have to clarify any opinions on it, as the scenario given isn't one that clarifies if such abilities exist to be used, or would be reasonable to use or react with, or such.
For sure. Just tossing out things I think of. Everything being discussed is theoretical anyway. It all depends on what abilities each class also has in their kit.
didnt they mentioned time to kill 30-60sec. so one shot arent possible.
Also note - the initiator on a green player will not be able to use any form of CC - thus increasing the survivability of the victim and the victim will be able to use CC on a purple.
let's use the same scenerio but this time - your purple/red and a green rogue or a bounty hunter rogue spotted you and sneaks up - CC and burst you down - well too bad. Shouldnt have been purple/red. risk/reward
TTK also has its limit too. It's not a hard immunity clock. A character can still be focus-fired and good luck surviving for the targeted 30-60s if a rogue + ranger + mage synchronizing their opening attacks on the same unlucky sob only to have the fighter and tank charge them too. If we want to restrict the debate to kills from stealth, how many rogues do we need working together to down a key opponent? Say the healer. Is it a viable group strategy to have 2-3 rogues while actively looking for groups to gank?
True, but only in open world PvP, in all the situations where one is already flagged as a combatant (caravans, prior combat, etc), corruption is not a deterrent and thus one shot possibilities are still a issue.
In other words, should Intrepid worry about some "hidden" combo wombo that could result in a one-shot or do you think that those are just a gimmick that wouldn't really work in a practical application?
I'm not sure if the point being made here is "this is okay because it is balanced and fine for the game" or "players who don't counterbuild oneshot characters are noobs that need to git gud" or both.
I think that it might be necessary to clarify which of these you lean towards if 'the other side' of this argument is to respond properly, so please note it, if you don't mind.
As for me, in every scenario where I am talking about it, I'm referring to 'Stealthed Rogue with long-ish buffs to spike their damage using a backstab oneshot on a squishier character from stealth for an instant OR unreactable kill'. This is because I assumed this is what OP was referring to.
So CC is not required, even for greens. I would also personally consider Guild War situations, etc, where you don't have to worry about the opponent ever 'being green to you', which is why I ask for the clarification. I find Guild War scenarios to be the ones where this matters the most in other games.
Was quoting @Solvryn on this one. Have always found your perspectives on game-dev to be quite agreeable - ESPECIALLY the perspective that balance doesn't necessarily equate to fun.
Herein lies and opportunity to add additional protections to the un-suspecting ambush victim; Synergistic abilities really should NOT apply to green players. If we're talking PvP and it wasn't the same combat that it was earned in, why should build-up abilities transfer from killing NPC mobs to killing a completely un-suspecting player?
I guess I'd choose balance, as there may be games out there that I don't enjoy personally no matter how fun they are to others.
Funs subject to an individual, a well-balanced game is on the devs which everyone can experience.
I've had the most fun when games are balanced, because PvP and Logistics are my primary interests and when a game is balanced for the fight it doesn't rob me of my victories. Though my preference is the game is balanced and well-built with PvP and PvE going together and not fighting each other.
Their success relies entirely on the person person playing the build to time their burst correctly. And, if the defender's build is set up in a way where defensive stats are so high and/or defensives have such a high uptime that they are able to prevent a oneshot that they can't see coming, at all times... that is also uninteractive and skill-less.
For reference, I have a lot of experience at the high end of PvP in multiple games playing builds on both ends of this spectrum. The safest option is to not allow single builds the ability to oneshot from stealth. Oneshotting a low health (25-40%) target makes sense depending on how squishy both players are. But anything higher that should be avoided unless the telegraph is reactable and clear.
Noted, thank you.
Moving on with your new point then, I agree that IF Synergies really just boil down to different debuffs/CC then they should not apply to Green players.
However I could easily be convinced that a reasonable Synergy that somehow results in a damage increase for the second attacker that puts a 'stack' on a player, should be allowed. I would still not want it to approach the level of 'lol ur deleted' but I'm sort of okay with high damage here.
This is with a lot of assumptions though, about how one would reasonably design Synergies. So overall, I'm okay with it IF:
1. The initiator is also a melee class (don't care if they have some stealth or not)
2. The ability that puts the 'debuff' on the opponent doesn't do big damage itself
3. The 'debuff' is instantly CONSUMED to do the damage as soon as the synergy is triggered (so you can't have one Fighter >> Two Rogues >> Dead.
There are other similar combinations I'm fine with that lead to big damage because two people, with counterplay options, will have both 'more trouble setting it up' and 'more risk in their positioning', and I mean the type of risk that the opponents will definitely get a chance to capitalize on.
I need to remember to ask if 'all Debuffs' are stopped for Greens or just 'all CC style ones'. I would figure Bleed and Defense Down still work, but I don't know that with certainty.
ESO was brought up and it’s a great example. Someone was able to land a heavy attack, ability and proc set at the same time so it would look like a one shot, but was actually 3 abilities at once. That plus because the game engine is broken sometimes you could get off 2 abilities before you’d render making it even worse.
So anyways, asking for 3 abilities instead of one shots doesn’t really make sense.
Early or late L2?
Mostly trying to figure out whether or not Steven's experience has a chance of aligning with Iskiab's, or if it would have been similar to yours and therefore would come to your conclusion about the point, instead.
It's always so enlightening to see all the different perspectives on gameplay for stuff like this...
I do hope that Steven doesn't go for one-shots in Ashes cause as much as I loved critting someone for x3-5 their health, I'd assume that those people weren't quite as happy about that situation. I was just pointing out that there are in fact games that let you one-shots others. And those classes didn't even need huge debuff stacks or combo wombos. You'd just buff yourself up properly and go kill a few dudes (the crucial buffs usually lasted 30s-1min).
ESO made the mistake of having light/heavy attacks on one GCD and abilities on another so you could combine them in one attack.
Travel times can also contribute if you have slow and fast projectiles. Cast the slow travel time ability first, fast one next and instant damage last and in some games you could get them to hit at the same time.
These are all strategy things that should be encouraged so people can have some burst and is PvP 101 stuff, it just shouldn’t be able to be combined for all someone’s health.