Ludullu wrote: » I do want some rng in pvp and resists to disables, but I'm definitely against this universal bs. If you're afraid of stuns - build your resistances against THAT, not against every god damn disable out there. Same for slows, poisons, bleeds, anchors, roots, etc etc etc. I hope that this kind of design comes with horizontal enchantment of gear, that we were promised, and that the universal stat will go away after that horizontality is implemented.
Blaspherian wrote: » Sorry but I have to hard disagree here. We'll already have RNG in way of Evasion vs Accuracy. With those stats, at least you know when you miss an ability. You shouldn't expect a CC to land if your ability missed.
Blaspherian wrote: » Curious, do you know of any games that successfully implemented CC resist like this? I'd be interested to know how they handled it.
Azherae wrote: » (Note, I also absolutely hate RNG CC so let's not turn this into you telling me personally how wrong I am).
Blaspherian wrote: » [Where's the counter to Disable Evasion? Is it gonna be Disable Success Rating? Lol just delete those stats please, it's getting silly now.
Ludullu wrote: » Blaspherian wrote: » Sorry but I have to hard disagree here. We'll already have RNG in way of Evasion vs Accuracy. With those stats, at least you know when you miss an ability. You shouldn't expect a CC to land if your ability missed. I'm an extremist on this topic. I don't believe evasion/accuracy stat should have anything to do with ABILITIES. You're physically evading a fucking magic ability. To me that's bs. Magic is magic. It hits, but should be resistable/mitigatable - not evaded.
Ludullu wrote: » As Azherae said, it's about preferences. L2's CCs had direct resists against them and people who built gear/buffs against those would then have better chances in pvp against them. And to everyone I played with across 12 years this seemed more than fair. Resistances would get to a point where using the CC with that effect would be pretty much a pointless waste of mana and cast time, so the opponent had to adapt their gameplay. My main class relied quite heavily on its paralysis ability. People knew this and used a certain gear set that gave you 50% resist to paralysis. This set had a lower p.def value and was usually far below optimal for the dps output of classes that would wear it as defense. Majority of players of my class would only rely on the paralysis and magic atks (even though the class had amazing phys abilities too), so this set was widely used. I could then easily exploit this gear set, because I always used phys abilities of my class to the fullest, so anyone who'd wear this anti-paral set would have a disadvantage against me and would have to decide which they were more afraid of: my paralysis or my phys atks. To me that sounds like a good "action - counteraction" pvp design. Some people would purely outskill me, while wearing the anti-paral set (and some classes would just be papers to my rock), while others would rely on defenses and would just outlive the paralysis, or just risk the chance of not getting paralyzed and killing me before they do.
Azherae wrote: » But the person with the high CC Resist/evasion is expressing their skill by baiting you into a response that won't work, aren't they?
Azherae wrote: » I'm just moreso pointing out here that this 'argument' never ends because people have fundamentally different goals and ideas of what this genre should work like. Ashes has chosen to be a game with CC Resists of the evasion type (and people have been expressing their dislike of this for 4 years, I figure if they were going to change that, they'd have done it).
Ace1234 wrote: » I hate output rng. I think people get caught up in the idea of "output rng can reinforce and feed into input rng", but there are plenty of opportunities for input rng by simply relying on the dynamic nature of player behaviors, skill variance, and branching decision making (providing the combat system is deep enough to allow room for variety of different combat outcomes). If this is the case, having enough input rng for dynamic combat happens organically and doesn't need help from output rng, so I think focusing on that does more harm than good to the feel of the combat imo. I mean, look at fighting games. Most of them don't really include much output rng at all. In those games if you hit your opponent you get rewarded for it. Yet they have some of the most complex and dynamic combat systems in all of gaming due to said player behaviors I mentioned earlier. Why is output rng necessary for combat? I dont get it. So yeah I hate the rng cc resist, and any other waterfall stat that determines any given combat interaction (like evasion/accuracy overriding manual dodging/attacking), rather than letting the ability usage do its job.
Birqa wrote: » do we know if the disable resistance is new as a stat on gear? and attributes? a difficult topic but since its ingrained into tank and fighter already it seems like its here to stay. so the question is more about how to balance it for a skillful gameplay experience?
Birqa wrote: » a difficult topic but since its ingrained into tank and fighter already it seems like its here to stay. so the question is more about how to balance it for a skillful gameplay experience?
Rusk wrote: » TL;DR From my perspective there isn't a valuable mechanical or fun reason to include disability evasion, especially when we already have other compelling alternatives in the game now.