Mob CC Protection

Azherae

So, now that we know the Tank will in fact have a decent amount of CC, and that CCs seem to (at the moment), combine 'raw', i.e. you can expect that Status A doesn't PROTECT from also getting status B, it just upgrades to Status C...

How do people prefer mobs to experience CC chains?

Let's assume that the same area from the Tank Showcase was undertaken by a larger party, but instead of adding the other four archetypes, you just added 4 more Tanks.

Functionally you could just 'make sure mobs never get to do anything' if they have no CC Protection. But on the other hand, it might feel bad to 'CC a mob, then be unable to CC it again to stop a big ability because you just did that'.

Any opinion on how this should be approached?

Songcaller

I thought all cc has diminishing returns. That should include pvp and pve because the game is pvx.

Azherae

Neurath wrote: »

I thought all cc has diminishing returns. That should include pvp and pve because the game is pvx.

"Functionally you could just 'make sure mobs never get to do anything' if they have no CC Protection. But on the other hand, it might feel bad to 'CC a mob, then be unable to CC it again to stop a big ability because you just did that'."

Just verifying that you're implying this is fine for you.

Songcaller

I'm used to fighting mobs with cc immunity. I still think diminishing returns for cc should be on mobs. It adds skill rather than just button mashing. One would hope the pve isn't just a button mash. Thus, I feel the second option is the one I prefer.

Voxtrium

Diminishing returns but on a less intense scale compared to players. so if players the ratio of time a cc is applied decreases by 50% each additional cc that is applied after the first within a 10 second time frame than for mobs id want it to be like 25% or some thing similar.

Ludullu

Same as players. And if you know that the mob has some strong ability - do better and don't just constantly CC it.

tautau

The cleric could sleep the mob, right?

George_Black

The ease at which players can run away from mobs due to leash, as shown, is a much bigger problem than advocating for protections for the mobs from players.

No sane group of players would waste mp to keep mobs CCed, instead of using mp to kill them.
Unique mobs to Veras story and world feel would obviously have immunities.

There are many topics that are a much higher priority that shouldnt be overlooked. Why are we talking about mobs not being CC chained?

Azherae

George_Black wrote: »

The ease at which players can run away from mobs due to leash, as shown, is a much bigger problem than advocating for protections for the mobs from players.

No sane group of players would waste mp to keep mobs CCed, instead of using mp to kill them.
Unique mobs to Veras story and world feel would obviously have immunities.

There are many topics that are a much higher priority that shouldnt be overlooked. Why are we talking about mobs not being CC chained?

Secondary splinter Topic created for higher priority topic.

In the meantime, may I assume that you are okay with Mobs having immunities? Any additional detail? Should Lord Oakenbane have full immunity to tripped for example? Or do you mean a faster CC immunity buildup? Is that type of 'boss' not on the level you're referring to?

George_Black

Large mobs and bosses should have CC immunity. Nothing else.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Same as players. And if you know that the mob has some strong ability - do better and don't just constantly CC it.

I expect that your answer to this question will be complex, but I must ask it anyway.

What do you want to happen when an unrelated party CCs your boss to trigger its immunity when they think it is about to unleash on you soon?

I will only ask that you don't consider the situation where any mob has CC protection from anyone who wasn't the original one to engage with it, because I don't think we have time for that rabbit-hole.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

What do you want to happen when an unrelated party CCs your boss to trigger its immunity when they think it is about to unleash on you soon?

I will only ask that you don't consider the situation where any mob has CC protection from anyone who wasn't the original one to engage with it, because I don't think we have time for that rabbit-hole.

Aren't these two contradictory though?

As for that situation, I'd probably prefer some, at least, small threshold of threat for those CCs to work. Maybe even a dmg threshold requirement. Cause it would mean that the 3rd party was present near the boss for some time and even made some aggressive actions (I'd prefer if those counted towards threat even if they were aimed at other players, I wrote out my idea in the Guild Bombing thread). And if the OG raid didn't address their competitors in any way - that's on them.

But yeah, letting anyone just CC your mob/boss would probably become a fairly big issue. On the other hand, people wouldn't be able to just help others by CCing a hard mob chasing a weaker player, but I think this is the stuff you were asking me to avoid thinking about, so I'll let it go

novercalis

George_Black wrote: »

Large mobs and bosses should have CC immunity. Nothing else.

wont go that far.

Would be cool to knock down some big baddies down.

Large Cyclop? YES. A Dragon? No, Lord Oak? He had no legs FFS, so no!

Each npc should have some type of CC immunities imho.

Can't Root a flyer, Cant knock down something with no legs and things with more than 2 legs, can't slow certain things, can't daze a golem, etc etc.

Blindside

Break bars for certain mobs.

Using crowd controls or movement impairing effects on the mob while the break bar is active will drain it at different levels depending on the strength of the CC. When the break bar runs out, the mob gets stunned briefly (while becoming immune to additional CCs) and can (potentially) take more damage until the break bar reforms after a few seconds.

This way, crowd controls are still effective tools for killing mobs, but you don't run into the problem of them getting stunlocked forever which would make the fight boring.

It could also make specific fights more interesting by having certain boss phases where you'd want to fully drain the break bar to stun party-wipe mechanics. In this example, breaking the bar too early/late could cause everyone to die because the boss would be CC immune while channeling its nuke.

On the PvP side of things, a variety of archetype-specific stunbreaks + duration based CC immunity skills would be great.

Ace1234

I also like the idea of a "break bar" for bosses- this way all skills can still be relevant in dealing with the boss mechanics, but certain skills are emphasized which can be used to add variety and difficulty to fights, while also limiting the "cheese" strategies. Its also very satisfying to punish a boss after earning that "broken" state.

JamesSunderland

I like Blindside's Break Bar Idea for bosses, for elite monsters i'm more of a fan of very high resistances + way lower durations, for your average monster, i believe cc locking with different types of CC should be a possibility but with a restrction such as "temporary immunity to a type of CC used twice in a short time".

Spif

I'd rather mobs obey CC DR/immunity in the same way players do, to promote PvX play. And both mobs and players having long-ish immunity timers once DR finishes. Especially since there are essentially 2 stuns (stun and knockdown) that are on separate immunity timers.

Bosses can, of course, have CC immunity to protect their important mechanics. But's it's a skill option to save a knockdown/stun for a boss that is winding up for a big not-a-mechanic attack. And even regular mobs can have limited debuff immunity based on type (rock guys can't be bleed, flyers can't be snared, ghosts can't be stunned, fish can't be drowned, whatever)

IMO break bars fall under mechanics, or gear/level gateways like DPS and heal checks.

Azherae

I

Spif wrote: »

I'd rather mobs obey CC DR/immunity in the same way players do, to promote PvX play. And both mobs and players having long-ish immunity timers once DR finishes. Especially since there are essentially 2 stuns (stun and knockdown) that are on separate immunity timers.

Bosses can, of course, have CC immunity to protect their important mechanics. But's it's a skill option to save a knockdown/stun for a boss that is winding up for a big not-a-mechanic attack. And even regular mobs can have limited debuff immunity based on type (rock guys can't be bleed, flyers can't be snared, ghosts can't be stunned, fish can't be drowned, whatever)

IMO break bars fall under mechanics, or gear/level gateways like DPS and heal checks.

What are you counting as a 'longish immunity timer'?

I had some reason I was analyzing why I don't like the initial Break Bar implementation concept, but I got caught up in something this weekend and forgot the specifics...

I may have an 'objection' to it later.

If anyone wants to help me remember, it started at 'A Break Bar would still require Immunity in order to be effective if it can be depleted by multiple Tanks all using their abilities especially if not all need to be in the party/raid'. I went about three steps past there (recognizing that this has an easy design solution, then finding a player exploit in that solution, then countering the exploit, and then finally the part I forget now is the 'this ends up going against a design principle').