How to give Action Fans Active Blocking without Breaking Waterfall Stat Blocking

We had a very in-depth discussion today on the Discord about how to give action fans active blocking without breaking passive (waterfall or tab) blocking.

Keep in mind this discussion is on shield use, not tanks using shields.

1: Active Blocking should give you a flat damage reduction on incoming damage. This damage would be based on the shield type/size/quality. So a small round shield might reduce 100 points of damage on every attack coming in, and a tower shield might reduce 500 points of damage on every attack coming in.

There is alternative variant to this where you could have active blocking give 100% damage reduction up to the set threshold/exhaustion level (see #3)

2: Even while active blocking your passive blocking can still trigger for whatever percentage passive blocking gives to damage reduction. So if you have a block rating of 30% then 30% of the time you'd block the attack, regardless of if you are active blocking or not. This would then give whatever damage reduction you give on blocks (100% or less as designed)

3: Instead of creating an exhaustion bar or a stamina bar for blocking, the "exhaustion" bar is a set amount of damage that shield can take in any one gulp. So you can hide behind your buckler for 1000 damage or your tower shield for 3000. After that damage is capped your ability to go into your active blocking stance goes on cooldown and your shield drops and you can no longer actively block (but you can still passively/waterfall block). Smaller shields recharge this HP pool faster than bigger shields.

4: The shield itself has a set amount of HP (can be in the hundreds of thousands of HP) but it has to be repaired. The more you block, the more HP damage the shield takes.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

truelyyy

Dygz wrote: »

"RPGs are about character skill; not player twitch skills." - This implies player twitch skills are not relevant

"There will be less RNG with Action Combat skills, but there will still be some because Ashes is an RPG, not an FPS." - This implies fundamentally RnG is part of RPGs

It seems you don't seem to understand what you have actually written. Maybe you don't mean to but both of these statements are in absolutes. You didn't write it's more about character skill than twitch skills, you wrote "not player twitch skills". The second statement is an absolute way states that there will be RnG because ashes is an RPG.

Dygz

No. You don't understand the difference between a generalization and an absolute.
The 2nd statement explains why the Ashes devs have chosen to ensure that while Action Combat will have less RNG than Tab Target, RNG will always play a role in Ashes of Creation combat.

"RNG will always play a role in Ashes in PvP or PvE. But one way to mitigate that is through the Action system. The Action system is going to be far less dependent on those dice rolls and they will be far more in your own hands. They won't ever completely eliminate that (RNG), but it's a way for us to reward (player) skill play versus tactical/strategy type play."
---Jeffrey.

RNG is fundamental to RPGs. That doesn't mean that every single RPG must have RNG or else it's not an RPG.
The more a game focuses on player twitch skills rather than character build, the closer it becomes to being some other game genre, like an FPS with RPG elements or a Survival gme with RPG elements.

Testes are fundamental to being male, but that does not mean that every male must have testes or that a lack of testes means a being is not male.

The Ashes devs, of course, have chosen to have RNG be fundamental to Ashes combat because that is typical of RPGs. I did not state anything close to "Every single RPG ever made has included RNG."
Just because you mistakenly inferred that from what I wrote does not mean I implied it. I certainly didn't explicitly state what you mistakenly inferred.

truelyyy

And this is why you make no sense

"There will be less RNG with Action Combat skills, but there will still be some because Ashes is an RPG, not an FPS." is not = "RNG will always play a role in Ashes in PvP or PvE. But one way to mitigate that is through the Action system. The Action system is going to be far less dependent on those dice rolls and they will be far more in your own hands. They won't ever completely eliminate that (RNG), but it's a way for us to reward (player) skill play versus tactical/strategy type play."

why do you think statement 1 saying RnG is in Ashes because it's an RPG is the same as statement 2 ashes has RnG?

It's pretty simple logic and you wonder why you have all these back and forth posts all the time. These are two different statements but you act as if they are the same hence my earlier comments about you don't seem to fully understand what you are actually saying in your statements when talking about nuanced subjects.

I didn't infer anything you wrote it yourself - "There will be less RNG with Action Combat skills, but there will still be some because Ashes is an RPG, not an FPS." This statement means that RPGs always have RnG, unless you don't understand english properly, I assume you didn't mean it, but this is what this statement says.

Dygz

Um. Statement one is a paraphrase of statement two. And it includes the reasoning behind statement two.
Statement one does not state that every RPG must have RNG.

Apparently, you fail to grasp simple logic.
You also do not know the meaning of infer.
And no, what you infer from the statement I wrote is not the actual meaning of what I wrote.
You don't understand the difference between a generalization and an absolute.
You added 'always" in your inference. I did not write the word "always" or "all" or any qualifier that leads to an absolute.
You have a poor grasp of English.

PenguinPaladin

Dygz wrote: »

Um. Statement one is a paraphrase of statement two. And it includes the reasoning behind statement two.
Statement one does not state that every RPG must have RNG.

Apparently, you fail to grasp simple logic.
You also do not know the meaning of infer.

Bro. You have a hard time communicating effectively. You are well informed, and tend to have good arguments. But your usage of words is confusing most of the time, and you almost always seem standoff-ish or hostile.

Dygz

You are confused by my usage of words most of the time and, to you, I almost always seem standoff-ish or hostile.
Can't please all of the people all of the time.
I am nice, but not polite.
I'm OK with that.

If you're confused by what I write, ask questions. That's part of the way discussions work.

PenguinPaladin

Dygz wrote: »

You are confused by my usage of words most of the time and, to you, I almost always seem standoff-ish or hostile.
Can't please all of the people all of the time.
I am nice, but not polite.
I'm OK with that.

If you're confused by what I write, ask questions. That's part of the way discussions work.

Im just saying so to let you know. I seem to find you at odds all the time, and we have had our misunderstandings as well. I dont have any problems with you, and tend to value your takes and information.

Dygz

Yep.

truelyyy

I rest my case your honor!

Elder

Dygz wrote: »

You are confused by my usage of words most of the time and, to you, I almost always seem standoff-ish or hostile.
Can't please all of the people all of the time.
I am nice, but not polite.
I'm OK with that.

If you're confused by what I write, ask questions. That's part of the way discussions work.

I don't think you're being very nice at the moment. I'd argue you're purposely and thoughtfully trying to publicly discredit someones education in an attempt to win a petty argument over nothing but semantics.

My comprehension is, you're making assumptions about someone lacking an understanding of the English language based on them misrepresenting your complex statements, then you're providing these assumptions as facts. It's pretentious and belittling.

While these statements may be your opinion that doesn't necessarily make them true and should not be represented as truth.

Dygz wrote: »

Apparently, you fail to grasp simple logic.
You also do not know the meaning of infer.
You don't understand the difference between a generalization and an absolute.
You have a poor grasp of English.

Ugoogee

I'm assuming that the Evasion stat will still work while active blocking, so my dilemma comes from, why would I Active Block when my Evasion stat can just fully avoid damage for me? If I'm in a situation where I'm Active Blocking an attack but the "Miss/Evaded" text shows up when the attack lands then I'm gonna be thinking to myself, "Why did I just give up my offensive pressure to potentially reduce incoming damage?"

If anyone can clarify this for me then that would be great because I didn't feel like reading the comments in this thread and someone may have already cleared this up

JamesSunderland

Ugoogee wrote: »

I'm assuming that the Evasion stat will still work while active blocking, so my dilemma comes from, why would I Active Block when my Evasion stat can just fully avoid damage for me? If I'm in a situation where I'm Active Blocking an attack but the "Miss/Evaded" text shows up when the attack lands then I'm gonna be thinking to myself, "Why did I just give up my offensive pressure to potentially reduce incoming damage?"

If anyone can clarify this for me then that would be great because I didn't feel like reading the comments in this thread and someone may have already cleared this up

Currently, we don't know if active block will work simuntaneously alongside the other defensive stats(block/parry/evasion chance) or if while active it disables the passive waterfall defensive stats.

The thing about the active blocking is that even if it works along side passive waterfall defensive stats it still is a garantee of the damage mitigation without the requiriment of an RNG roll, and yes, you can choose to simple not use active blocking and gamble on your passive waterfall defensive stats chances.

Dygz

Elder wrote: »

I don't think you're being very nice at the moment. I'd argue you're purposely and thoughtfully trying to publicly discredit someones education in an attempt to win a petty argument over nothing but semantics.

You are free to think what you wish.

Elder wrote: »

My comprehension is, you're making assumptions about someone lacking an understanding of the English language based on them misrepresenting your complex statements, then you're providing these assumptions as facts. It's pretentious and belittling.

It's not an assumption. And my statements are not complex.
If someone doesn't understand the difference between a generalization and an absolute that's not my fault.
It means they have poor comprehension of basic English.
I'm not the one who started a discussion about semantics - the person who miscontred what I wrote did that.

Elder

Dygz wrote: »

Elder wrote: »

I don't think you're being very nice at the moment. I'd argue you're purposely and thoughtfully trying to publicly discredit someones education in an attempt to win a petty argument over nothing but semantics.

You are free to think what you wish.

Elder wrote: »

My comprehension is, you're making assumptions about someone lacking an understanding of the English language based on them misrepresenting your complex statements, then you're providing these assumptions as facts. It's pretentious and belittling.

It's not an assumption. And my statements are not complex.
If someone doesn't understand the difference between a generalization and an absolute that's not my fault.
It means they have poor comprehension of basic English.
I'm not the one who started a discussion about semantics - the person who miscontred what I wrote did that.

It is indeed an assumption as you believe your claim to be true but don't have substantial evidence or argument for your claims to be accepted as truth. I'm not discrediting the possible validity of your statements, just the fact that you came to these conclusions based on conjecture and therefore should not be presenting them as truths.

Dygz

Um. No.
Assumption would occur before evidence was provided.
In this case, evidence of poor comprehension was provided before I formed an opinion on that matter. And then verified when more evidence was provided.

I'm not sure why you are choosing to discuss this, though. It's really just going to waste your time.

Elder

Dygz wrote: »

Um. No.
Assumption would occur before evidence was provided.
In this case, evidence of poor comprehension was provided before I formed an opinion on that matter. And then verified when more evidence was provided.

I'm not sure why you are choosing to discuss this, though. It's really just going to waste your time.

Again, you came to these conclusions based on conjecture not any substantial evidence or argument.

Dygz

No. I came to those conclusions based on evidence. And verified my conclusions with further evidence.
Repeating your false assertions won't get you anywhere.

Elder

Dygz wrote: »

No. I came to those conclusions based on evidence. And verified my conclusion with further evidence.
Repeating your false assertions won't get you anywhere.

I do not believe I made any false assertions. I suspect you may have not have fully comprehended my argument. I have made no claim that you did not have evidence to support your statements but rather claimed your evidence as unsubstantial and based on conjecture.

You do not have a detailed comprehension of their education and understandings and therefore can not with certainty provide your opinion on the subject as factual, solely based on your few and brief interactions here.

Dygz

I have enough to make the statement I made and stick by it.
I really don't care what you believe. It's a free world. You get to hold whatever false beliefs you like.
Anyway. I'm done with this inane, futile tangent. No need for further derail of this thread.
Take the last word if wish.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

You are confused by my usage of words most of the time and, to you, I almost always seem standoff-ish or hostile.
Can't please all of the people all of the time.
I am nice, but not polite.
I'm OK with that.

If you're confused by what I write, ask questions. That's part of the way discussions work.

There have been at least a dozen posters tell you basically exactly this that I can recall - and who knows how many have thought it without saying anything.

If one person doesn't understand you, the problem lies with them. If many people dont understand you, the problem lies with you

Child Item