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

Dygz

Right. Because if most people think the Earth is flat, the Earth is truly flat.
🙄

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Right. Because if most people think the Earth is flat, the Earth is truly flat.
🙄

Is this your best defense?

Most people dont think the earth us flat because there is evidence of this.

If most people think a thing - any thing - it is because there is evidence of it.

There is evidence that you are very hard to understand.

truelyyy

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Well yes if you are not born with testes then you are indeed not male. Hence testes are fundamental to being a male.

Once again using hyperbolic examples to try and make your case. Maybe you should look at the definition of fundamental: "forming a necessary base or core" so yes if it's fundamental to the game it has to be included. If RnG is fundamental to RPGs then yes it has to be included. If it's fundamental is it absolute, it's not a generalisation.

Dygz wrote: »

No. You don't understand the difference between a generalization and an absolute.

Well please educate me please write for me the the generalised and absolute versions of the following statements:
"RPGs are about character skill; not player twitch skills."
"There will be less RNG with Action Combat skills, but there will still be some because Ashes is an RPG, not an FPS."

I'm interested to see what fuzzy logic you are going to use to ensure you are the one that is correct in this debate.

P.S. I am English so my grasp of the english language I'm sure will suffice, maybe even exemplary!

Elder

truely wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Well yes if you are not born with testes then you are indeed not male. Hence testes are fundamental to being a male.

Once again using hyperbolic examples to try and make your case. Maybe you should look at the definition of fundamental: "forming a necessary base or core" so yes if it's fundamental to the game it has to be included. If RnG is fundamental to RPGs then yes it has to be included. If it's fundamental is it absolute, it's not a generalisation.

Dygz wrote: »

No. You don't understand the difference between a generalization and an absolute.

Well please educate me please write for me the the generalised and absolute versions of the following statements:
"RPGs are about character skill; not player twitch skills."
"There will be less RNG with Action Combat skills, but there will still be some because Ashes is an RPG, not an FPS."

I'm interested to see what fuzzy logic you are going to use to ensure you are the one that is correct in this debate.

P.S. I am English so my grasp of the english language I'm sure will suffice, maybe even exemplary!

Gender identity is a complicated topic. I won't speak on the subject as this most certainly is not the appropriate medium for such a discussion.

I would however like to point out that definitions of gender are usually not as uninvolved as your statement suggests and therefore may not be a fitting representation of the argument you're presenting.

truelyyy

Elder wrote: »

truely wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Well yes if you are not born with testes then you are indeed not male. Hence testes are fundamental to being a male.

Once again using hyperbolic examples to try and make your case. Maybe you should look at the definition of fundamental: "forming a necessary base or core" so yes if it's fundamental to the game it has to be included. If RnG is fundamental to RPGs then yes it has to be included. If it's fundamental is it absolute, it's not a generalisation.

Dygz wrote: »

No. You don't understand the difference between a generalization and an absolute.

Well please educate me please write for me the the generalised and absolute versions of the following statements:
"RPGs are about character skill; not player twitch skills."
"There will be less RNG with Action Combat skills, but there will still be some because Ashes is an RPG, not an FPS."

I'm interested to see what fuzzy logic you are going to use to ensure you are the one that is correct in this debate.

P.S. I am English so my grasp of the english language I'm sure will suffice, maybe even exemplary!

Gender identity is a complicated topic. I won't speak on the subject as this most certainly is not the appropriate medium for such a discussion.

I would however like to point out that definitions of gender are usually not as uninvolved as your statement suggests and therefore may not be a fitting representation of the argument you're presenting.

I'm not talking about gender identity, I'm talking about sex. Gender identity isn't complicated at all. Gender identity is simply anything you identify with. Hence people have gender identities that have gone as far as being male, female, dog, dragons anything goes with the current use of the word because the mind can be identified with anything.

Elder

truely wrote: »

Elder wrote: »

truely wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Well yes if you are not born with testes then you are indeed not male. Hence testes are fundamental to being a male.

Once again using hyperbolic examples to try and make your case. Maybe you should look at the definition of fundamental: "forming a necessary base or core" so yes if it's fundamental to the game it has to be included. If RnG is fundamental to RPGs then yes it has to be included. If it's fundamental is it absolute, it's not a generalisation.

Dygz wrote: »

No. You don't understand the difference between a generalization and an absolute.

Well please educate me please write for me the the generalised and absolute versions of the following statements:
"RPGs are about character skill; not player twitch skills."
"There will be less RNG with Action Combat skills, but there will still be some because Ashes is an RPG, not an FPS."

I'm interested to see what fuzzy logic you are going to use to ensure you are the one that is correct in this debate.

P.S. I am English so my grasp of the english language I'm sure will suffice, maybe even exemplary!

Gender identity is a complicated topic. I won't speak on the subject as this most certainly is not the appropriate medium for such a discussion.

I would however like to point out that definitions of gender are usually not as uninvolved as your statement suggests and therefore may not be a fitting representation of the argument you're presenting.

I'm not talking about gender identity, I'm talking about sex. Gender identity isn't complicated at all. Gender identity is simply anything you identify with. Hence people have gender identities that have gone as far as being male, female, dog, dragons anything goes with the current use of the word because the mind can be identified with anything.

I would first like to reiterate that I would prefer not to discuss this here. Feel free to DM me but I don't imagine I'll be continuing this discussion here.

The word male also pertains to gender and is not exclusively categorized by sex. Your intent may have been to use male's strictly biological definition but you did not provide any clarification for this at the time and instead left your meaning open for interpretation and misrepresentation.

Gender
Definition reads; either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

truely wrote: »

Well yes if you are not born with testes then you are indeed not male.

This statement could potentially be skewed as offensive without a more detailed explanation of your meaning.

I don't believe I ever claimed the definition or meanings of gender identity were complicated, I specifically stated the topic was complicated.

Dygz

LMFAO

Mag7spy

What is this conversation no one needs to argue any of these points or go into depth on them.

Elder

I've fallen into a trap.

Okeydoke

lol dygz. I see you

truelyyy

Elder wrote: »

I've fallen into a trap.

Yes and you fell in way before this discussion

I joke, but just to explain, for your benefit, even if you don't see it that way:

"truely wrote: »
Well yes if you are not born with testes then you are indeed not male.

This statement could potentially be skewed as offensive without a more detailed explanation of your meaning."

This is pretty much the definition of being male. Definition of male: "of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring." So if you are offended by the definition of a word I think you need to re-evaluate how you are using words or your perspective on them. No doubt you've picked up certain ideas where these terms get confusingly intermingled and on purposefully obfuscated to win silly arguments. I'd recommend mentally seperating using male and female sexes from gender, use genders can be cis male/female or masculine and feminine as an alternative etc etc. all the best.

Dygz

😅🤐🤣

Elder

FFS. Now you're just trying to be a bigot.

The definition of male also reads; relating to men or the male gender. You have paraphrased and misrepresented select information in an embarrassing attempt to support what is likely an uneducated opinion.

I'm not sure why you're so eager to die on this hill. Your wounded pride isn't worth this.

Child Item