Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Fearing that a random green will go around the corner (while you fucking let him), heal up, buff up (ALL THE WHILE YOU'RE LETTING HIM DO THIS) and then come back and you're standing there with your pants down not doing shit - that's ALLLLL on you. And that's why I'll never understand this suggestion. My pvp elitist brain just cannot compute how a supposed cool and stronk pvper is afraid of a fucking mouse.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: And I know, from 12 years of experience, that if a dude stuns me and rails into me with a ton of dmg - I ain't retaliating unless I'm scissors to his paper (though even then it comes down to gear difference). And I'm not retaliating exactly because I'm at such a huge fucking disadvantage that fighting back will only lead to my death in more cases than not. So why the hell should I not just let the attacker get corruption.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » What is objective, is that preventing players from using their full skillkits just for playing the game, is bad. A near same solution to what you are asking is the balancing I mentioned, allowing players to fight back, without preventing attackers from using parts of their skillsets automatically. Ok, so when I tell Intrepid "I want all my tank defensive buffs to also do damage to a target" - I better see you fully supporting that suggestion. Because that is what you're suggesting right now. You keep talking about healers/tanks as only the defenders. I'm a pvper and I will be the first one flagging, but I'm also a tank. So when I flag on a green player ALL MY DEFENSIVE ABILITIES ARE NON-EXISTENT. They don't matter. They give me abso fucking lutely no advantage against that green player than I'm attacking. Why? Because the green player is not fighting back. There's nothing for me to defend against. So literally majority of my abilities (because that's the build I'll go for) will be absolutely useless to me as the aggressor. The same is true for cleric's skills and for all the non-offensive buffs on a bard. In other words, you simply want an archetype to get an advantage that they currently don't have, while other archetypes will still be at a HUGE disadvantage in the same situation. Imo this is an unfair ask. If rogues are in fact fully reliant on their CCs - that's their niche and it means that they're not meant as initial attackers in pvp, and instead are all about subterfuge and mid-fight engagement. As for the CC button. You keep only thinking as an attacker who wants the inevitable advantage. You fear that a dude will have it over you, but you still want it for yourself. Imo that's quite selfish. There's a distinction between greens and purples for a reason. Greens are meant to have fewer default risks in the existence, as opposed to purples. This includes the CC immunity. You want to drastically increase their risk. Steven doesn't want that, otherwise he wouldn't have implemented the CC immunity. Forcing people to clutch the CC button in case some asshole decides to stun them when they're fighting mobs would directly impact the enjoyment of the game for all the greens who just wanna farm. Their game will already be stressful enough, because they can always get attacked, but now you want them to also keep their finger on an otherwise-useless button, just in case they get CCed instead of attacked. I know you're all strong and stuff and would react quickly and we should all have our head on a swivel as soon as we log in, and I know that I will play exactly like that because I'm an L2 player - but I want others to be at least slightly less stressed, because that would lead to more people staying in the game and enjoying it. And I am not willing to give abusive players even more fucking ammo, just because rogues (that already have all the advantages they could wish for) can't use their CCs against an innocent player.
Dolyem wrote: » What is objective, is that preventing players from using their full skillkits just for playing the game, is bad. A near same solution to what you are asking is the balancing I mentioned, allowing players to fight back, without preventing attackers from using parts of their skillsets automatically.
Laetitian wrote: » @Dolyem Do you ever in your entire life make concessions? Your claims of objectivity remind me of when I was 18; it's so cringeworthy.There is nothing objectively inferior about game design making adjustments to make an ambusher less advantaged than they are by default. Which, as has been laid out to you in great detail, is a very broad advantage that can take a hit without being eliminated. It doesn't make ambushing ineffective. It doesn't make the ambusher "disadvantaged" as a whole. That's the part you're supposed to finally acknowledge. You did a fine job btw at completely ignoring that bulleted list highlighting the breadth of advantages that the ambusher has, and the point about invisibility making "paying attention" a useless counter to an ambush. Yes, one can stay prepared, but you are specifically talking about "detecting them beforehand" (which btw wouldn't allow you to turn the tables, it would at best even the playing field; It's not like the ambusher is gonna get caught off guard) several times in your responses. You're allowed to dislike that game design and argue in favour of other ways of creating engaging PvP dynamics and balance, but it's not a "belief", it's an opinion, and it most certainly isn't "objective." If you could just make any concessions about the imperfections of your ideas, maybe you'd make some progress in convincing other people of your reasons for preferring your ideas to their, equally imperfect, solutions. But as it stands, and you keep rejecting anything that isn't suitable to your flavour preference, this thread has become exceedingly pointess to participate in. Dolyem wrote: Killing a green is not prohibited, nor discouraged. You get rewarded for doing so at the cost of corruption. Excessively doing this is discouraged, and that is represented with increased corruption effects, handling that entire issue. Again, this assumption/interpretation is flawed. You don't get rewarded for killing greens by default. You get rewarded for killing careless greens who are carrying more resources on their person than they should without adequate protection. Most of the greens you'll find and be able to gank won't fall under both of those conditions. You'll barely be rewarded, and eat the full corruption. You are not being rewarded for killing random non-combatants. The loot you will get from random kills on unsuspecting greens in these ganks will be laughable compared to the costs you incur every time a pack of bountyhunters reaches you. I am not saying this because I dislike ganking. I am saying it because you need to understand how this game works, if you want to discuss your suggestions to adjust it. I'll say it one last time, and if you don't start acknowledging this truth about the game's design after it's been well understood in these forums for years, I'm done talking to you: The game does not encourage random PvP with unconsenting opponents. It encourages purpose-driven PvP that aggressors opt into when they see particuarly meaningful, rewarding opportunities. (Examples would be territory control, objective control, or particularly careless targets, likely well-known gatherers/artisans, carrying a bunch of resources on their character.) Dueling consenting opponents is a side thing. Doesn't get punished much, doesn't get rewarded much, because it's done for its own sake among consenting players. The game also *lets* you engage in other, meaningless, non-consenting PvP, but it doesn't *reward* it, it punishes it. The pillar allowing you to make this choice in spite of its punishment is the "player agency" pillar - you're allowed to do dumb stuff. It's not the "risk versus reward" pillar. Dolyem wrote: The point I was making with disengaging to re-engage your attacker before they lose combatant status is to switch the roles, where I am now the ambusher, but the difference now is that the player I am attacking doesn't gain the CC immunity advantage I had during their ambush. Its a work-around which I intend to test and showcase, so I and others can determine how bad or good it feels in terms of flow and gameplay. I could do it even in my proposal, but the difference would be the attacker would have the ability to CC me initially, giving them full access to their tools, and assuming a balanced system and not being hard countered, I could use abilities to react and counter, or choose to run. You want enemy players to be punished for being unprepared during any moment of their gameplay, but you can't be expected to stay on guard for 90 seconds after you've chased a bruised target outside of your vision range in case they regenerate their health, buff up, and sneak up on you? That's suddenly unfair balancing? Do you just say whatever ideas you have that favour your position without making the slightest effort to check how they would work out in reality and self-reflect about your opinion? I still agree that the committal PvP-CC-protection can suffice to provide the balance this game seeks, (and I'll leave it up to NiKr whether he'll consider CC-breaks a significant factor in this discussion; though I doubt it, considering it's something the ambusher has as well, so it really doesn't do much to even the playingfield), but damn, are you unpersuasive at making the case for it.
Dolyem wrote: Killing a green is not prohibited, nor discouraged. You get rewarded for doing so at the cost of corruption. Excessively doing this is discouraged, and that is represented with increased corruption effects, handling that entire issue.
Dolyem wrote: The point I was making with disengaging to re-engage your attacker before they lose combatant status is to switch the roles, where I am now the ambusher, but the difference now is that the player I am attacking doesn't gain the CC immunity advantage I had during their ambush. Its a work-around which I intend to test and showcase, so I and others can determine how bad or good it feels in terms of flow and gameplay. I could do it even in my proposal, but the difference would be the attacker would have the ability to CC me initially, giving them full access to their tools, and assuming a balanced system and not being hard countered, I could use abilities to react and counter, or choose to run.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Laetitian wrote: » I still agree that the committal PvP-CC-protection can suffice to provide the balance this game seeks, (and I'll leave it up to NiKr whether he'll consider CC-breaks a significant factor in this discussion; though I doubt it, considering it's something the ambusher has as well, so it really doesn't do much to even the playingfield), but damn, are you unpersuasive at making the case for it. I won't ever understand it, cause I simply cannot comprehend why someone WHO LITERALLY LET THEIR PREY GO should then have the advantage of that prey not retaliating. It's fucking bonkers to me. You attack an absolutely random person who was minding their own business, you prepared for that attack and did it in the most beneficial to you way - but suddenly you're a scaredy-cat who doesn't want its prey hitting it back. And, like, requiring a CC for your initial attack only spells out "I want to do as much dmg to the victim as possible" to me. Literally nothing else. I see no god damn reason why you would need a CC to attack an opponent (again, talking about attacking greens here, obviously). And I know, from 12 years of experience, that if a dude stuns me and rails into me with a ton of dmg - I ain't retaliating unless I'm scissors to his paper (though even then it comes down to gear difference). And I'm not retaliating exactly because I'm at such a huge fucking disadvantage that fighting back will only lead to my death in more cases than not. So why the hell should I not just let the attacker get corruption. And Dolyem's single counter to this has been "but if you want to attack first instead then you'll have CC too". Well yeah, that's a part of the risk/reward equation. And all the pvpers (such as myself) will have balls big enough to always hit first, w/o needing CCs. Because if you hit first - you better fucking believe that you're strong enough to follow through, no matter what the enemy does. Fearing that a random green will go around the corner (while you fucking let him), heal up, buff up (ALL THE WHILE YOU'RE LETTING HIM DO THIS) and then come back and you're standing there with your pants down not doing shit - that's ALLLLL on you. And that's why I'll never understand this suggestion. My pvp elitist brain just cannot compute how a supposed cool and stronk pvper is afraid of a fucking mouse.
Laetitian wrote: » I still agree that the committal PvP-CC-protection can suffice to provide the balance this game seeks, (and I'll leave it up to NiKr whether he'll consider CC-breaks a significant factor in this discussion; though I doubt it, considering it's something the ambusher has as well, so it really doesn't do much to even the playingfield), but damn, are you unpersuasive at making the case for it.
Dolyem wrote: » Texas wrote: » The CC immunity is so that someone can't CC grief you in the open world. The escape immunity ability doesn't actually help that situation as someone could still trip you off the rock you are mining or interrupt your cast on a mob. Aszkalon wrote: » Stealth versus Corruption ? Giving certain classes the ability to utterly evade a core game system would not be ideal. I mean, I would expect a basic attack would interrupt gathering. Not even as a CC, just damage in general interrupting that sort of action.
Texas wrote: » The CC immunity is so that someone can't CC grief you in the open world. The escape immunity ability doesn't actually help that situation as someone could still trip you off the rock you are mining or interrupt your cast on a mob. Aszkalon wrote: » Stealth versus Corruption ? Giving certain classes the ability to utterly evade a core game system would not be ideal.
Aszkalon wrote: » Stealth versus Corruption ?
ExiledByrd wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Texas wrote: » The CC immunity is so that someone can't CC grief you in the open world. The escape immunity ability doesn't actually help that situation as someone could still trip you off the rock you are mining or interrupt your cast on a mob. Aszkalon wrote: » Stealth versus Corruption ? Giving certain classes the ability to utterly evade a core game system would not be ideal. I mean, I would expect a basic attack would interrupt gathering. Not even as a CC, just damage in general interrupting that sort of action. If it does you could just follow them around and auto attack them when they try to harvest anything, until they get fed up and flag against you.
Dolyem wrote: » Ill keep my replies brief with you, only because you outright denied core design philosophies of the game that wont be changed.
Dolyem wrote: » I could literally regurgitate everything you just said back to you. The difference is that the objective part of what I am saying is that if you implement as system that prevents players from playing their class at 100%, that is bad design in any scenario.
Dolyem wrote: » The funny thing is I am arguing within parameters of Stevens design philosophy according to his quotes and information given, not even my own.
Dolyem wrote: » Here dude. Read how this game is being designed. Be sure to point out for me where it has been said that Random OWPvP is discouraged.
Laetitian wrote: Again, this assumption/interpretation is flawed. You don't get rewarded for killing greens by default. You get rewarded for killing careless greens who are carrying more resources on their person than they should without adequate protection. Most of the greens you'll find and be able to gank won't fall under both of those conditions. You'll barely be rewarded, and eat the full corruption. You are not being rewarded for killing random non-combatants. The loot you will get from random kills on unsuspecting greens in these ganks will be laughable compared to the costs you incur every time a pack of bountyhunters reaches you. I am not saying this because I dislike ganking. I am saying it because you need to understand how this game works, if you want to discuss your suggestions to adjust it.
All I see is griefing, and that definition is provided for you. You can spout your own definition all you want, but in this game you definition is incorrect.
Griefing definition wrote: "Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement [...]"
I will even repost this
Dolyem wrote: » The game rewards risk for minor corruption by potentially giving more resources for the kill. It ultimately punishes a player if they gain too much via EXCESSIVE kills, which is griefing. I will be sure to test this, 1 corrupted kill, and then cleanse the corruption. We will see what the timeframe is for what wouldnt be considered griefing to be corruptionless via working it off.
Dolyem wrote: » I believe the Active CC immunity suggestion does exactly what is intended. But for some reason that solution is seen as an advantage for Engaging a fight with all ones normal skill set as opposed to it being an advantage to whoever is being attacked in the current iteration, which is apparently completely ok.
Laetitian wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ill keep my replies brief with you, only because you outright denied core design philosophies of the game that wont be changed. Nope, I pointed out why you are misinterpreting which pillar your concern (ganking) falls under. Dolyem wrote: » I could literally regurgitate everything you just said back to you. The difference is that the objective part of what I am saying is that if you implement as system that prevents players from playing their class at 100%, that is bad design in any scenario. Jesus, you're literally incapable of recognising opinions and your own biases.
Laetitian wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » The funny thing is I am arguing within parameters of Stevens design philosophy according to his quotes and information given, not even my own. Nope, you think you are, and you're unwilling to recognise that these philosophies have been understood and torn apart by people who better understand their application in practice than you in these forums for year. I am not one of those people btw. I just know how to read what they said and not let my own preferences overwrite the interpretation.
Laetitian wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Here dude. Read how this game is being designed. Be sure to point out for me where it has been said that Random OWPvP is discouraged. I did. Here: Laetitian wrote: Again, this assumption/interpretation is flawed. You don't get rewarded for killing greens by default. You get rewarded for killing careless greens who are carrying more resources on their person than they should without adequate protection. Most of the greens you'll find and be able to gank won't fall under both of those conditions. You'll barely be rewarded, and eat the full corruption. You are not being rewarded for killing random non-combatants. The loot you will get from random kills on unsuspecting greens in these ganks will be laughable compared to the costs you incur every time a pack of bountyhunters reaches you. I am not saying this because I dislike ganking. I am saying it because you need to understand how this game works, if you want to discuss your suggestions to adjust it.
Laetitian wrote: » All I see is griefing, and that definition is provided for you. You can spout your own definition all you want, but in this game you definition is incorrect. It's not my own definition, it's what's been explained in detail across these forum posts. I have read the same wiki articles you have, but they don't contain the full information; there are several much clearer statements on corruption, ganking, and risk-versus-reward justifying PvP that Steven has made that are much clearer than the ones quoted in these articles. And no, I'm not about to scour 30 dev updates to find them for you. If you actually care about the true motivations behind the game design, you have to read between the lines sometimes. Like here: Griefing definition wrote: "Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement [...]" The problem is, though, that you actualy know all this. You've been around these forums long enough to have heard these explanations. You're just willfully ignoring reality and sticking to literal interpretations whenever they are convenient enough for you to stay in denial about what this game is meant to be.
Laetitian wrote: » I will even repost this I didn't say condemned. I said "not rewarded." Good luck with your life ignoring community consensus. You literally pushed away the only pro-ganking, pro-toggle community member who was willing to talk to you in this thread.
Laetitian wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » The game rewards risk for minor corruption by potentially giving more resources for the kill. It ultimately punishes a player if they gain too much via EXCESSIVE kills, which is griefing. I will be sure to test this, 1 corrupted kill, and then cleanse the corruption. We will see what the timeframe is for what wouldnt be considered griefing to be corruptionless via working it off. THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL REWARD FOR KILLING THE RANDOM NON-COMBATANT IN THE FIRST PLACE. EVERY TIME YOU KILL THEM AND GET KILLED BY BOUNTYHUNTERS YOU SUFFER SUBSTANTIAL PUNISHMENT WITHOUT SUNSTANTIAL REWARD. SNAP OUT OF YOUR SELF-SERVING BIAS AND UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT A GAME THAT ENCOURAGES RANDOM GANKING WHEN MULITPLE GANKING-ENCOURAGING PVP PLAYERS EXPLAIN TO YOU THAT THIS GAME DOES NOT ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO FIGHT RANDOM NON-COMBATANTS, BUT HEAVILY PUNISHES YOU EVERY TIME YOU KILL THEM WHEN THEY DON'T FIGHT BACK. Holy shit, do you suck at listening, I hope for the people in your real life that you stay single until you fix your arrogance.
Laetitian wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I believe the Active CC immunity suggestion does exactly what is intended. But for some reason that solution is seen as an advantage for Engaging a fight with all ones normal skill set as opposed to it being an advantage to whoever is being attacked in the current iteration, which is apparently completely ok. What are you hallucinating now? No one said it's an advantage for the engager, we said it doesn't disable the existing advantage of the ambusher. Are you really this incapable of engaging with a thought that disagrees with you that you just turn it into strawmen whenever it doesn't fit your preconceived explanation of reality? Anyway, you kept going with the "objectivity" bullshit without paying any attention to the flaws in your interpretations, so I'm out for good. Bye.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » To say you are a tank or any class right now and that you're instantly at a disadvantage simply because of the class you play is disingenuous because we have no idea if that is true or not. This is just a case of balancing and fight matchups. My argument is that ANY class that depends on abilities this CC immunity negates is instantly effected in a negative way due to having abilities removed for engagements. A defensive ability can potentially block an initial attack. Heals can save you. These paired with other abilities in those kits could counter whatever is attacking you. We dont know those yet, and they should be balanced during testing. The point I am making is that BOTH parties should have 100% access to their abilities during the interaction. You are so close to understanding my point about "pvp". "A defensive ability can potentially block an initial attack. Heals can save you. These paired with other abilities in those kits could counter whatever is attacking you" Use this, but on the attacker side and not the defender. Would you need these abilities if your target was a green player unwilling to fight back? Would they serve any purpose at all, if your target never fought back? I hope you see that they don't. So 3 other archetypes are pretty much useless (some to bigger extent, especially depending on their build) in the scenario you're trying to argue. Yet you're trying to get a huge advantage for the rogue (and maybe one other archetype that would specialize in CCs) with your suggestion. How is that fair to those 3 other archetypes then? This is why I keep saying that pvp doesn't start until the defender player fights back. And as soon as they DO fight back - you both have your full toolkits, except you, as the first attacker, already have the advantage of having dealt damage to the defender. Dolyem wrote: » Fairness of a fight shouldn't be decided by punishing a player who engages the fight. Is the chess player that has the white pieces disadvantaged against the player that has the black ones? Or is he completely free to choose absolutely any starting move he can come up with? Because that's the parallel here. You, as the attacker, have near-limitless freedom in your approach to the target: You can buff up to do the biggest hit possible You can call others to help you if you think the target is way stronger than you You can wait until the target is engaged with mobs, so you have an easier time killing them (potentially w/o corruption) You can choose positioning (rogues will have bows and might even be able to throw daggers or smth, so they're not fully melee) You can choose timing (i.e. the target had just spent a ton of mana against a few mobs) You can choose the type of dmg you wanna do (a small "challenging" hit or the biggest strike you can muster) All of those are your advantages, where your target is fully at your mercy (especially if you're a rogue in stealth). And to ALLLL of that shit, the only advantage the victim has is their CC immunity. Mostly, because it will allow the passive players to try and escape you. And the only way for them to truly escape you is if you decide to let them go. Like I already said before, we know that mounts can be summoned in combat, so no matter what the green player does to escape, you literally mount up and easily follow them, if you want to lose your flag before they try to hit you back. If they're on a mount as well - they can't heal/buff up. If they're running away while trying to heal up - you don't even need a mount, because they'd be way slower than you (no matter your class).
Dolyem wrote: » To say you are a tank or any class right now and that you're instantly at a disadvantage simply because of the class you play is disingenuous because we have no idea if that is true or not. This is just a case of balancing and fight matchups. My argument is that ANY class that depends on abilities this CC immunity negates is instantly effected in a negative way due to having abilities removed for engagements. A defensive ability can potentially block an initial attack. Heals can save you. These paired with other abilities in those kits could counter whatever is attacking you. We dont know those yet, and they should be balanced during testing. The point I am making is that BOTH parties should have 100% access to their abilities during the interaction.
Dolyem wrote: » Fairness of a fight shouldn't be decided by punishing a player who engages the fight.
Dolyem wrote: » So let me get this straight...you're frustrated that damage roles excel at damage...that tank roles excel at tanking...and that healer roles excel at healing... and you think its unfair that all of those don't equally correlate to killing a player 1v1 in PvP? And because of this, you want damage roles to be punished for attacking first in OWPvP? My dude, you need to accept the playstyles offered to you. If you want to be good at killing in PvP, play a killer. You want to talk about selfish? Imagine demanding players to be hindered at their role because you're playing a different role that doesn't do that job as well.
Dolyem wrote: » Youre saying you have the balls to engage first everytime, and yet you seem to be afraid of getting attacked by a player at 100% initially? Thats a contradiction if I ever saw one.
Laetitian wrote: » I'm thinking of a situation where I'm contesting an area/objective, and I need to get rid of a player in order to do so, but because they have overly powerful balance tools to let them go hide, it becomes a rather boring constant cat-and-mouse game until either side receives reinforcements and the other side gets punished. Whereas if they have to commit to the defensive side, at least I'll know I'll have my peace for like five minutes every time I chase them off, or they might be vulnerable for a follow-up ambush where I get to execute them for not actually committing to retreat; and now they can't fight back, because they used their toggle to run. The scenario might be flawed because this perhaps shouldn't be an aggressive 1v1 situation in the first place, but I think you get the idea?
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » So let me get this straight...you're frustrated that damage roles excel at damage...that tank roles excel at tanking...and that healer roles excel at healing... and you think its unfair that all of those don't equally correlate to killing a player 1v1 in PvP? And because of this, you want damage roles to be punished for attacking first in OWPvP? My dude, you need to accept the playstyles offered to you. If you want to be good at killing in PvP, play a killer. You want to talk about selfish? Imagine demanding players to be hindered at their role because you're playing a different role that doesn't do that job as well. You keep misunderstanding my point over and over. I'm not talking about damage or anything like that. You say "my rogue has CCs, but can't make use of them in an initiation". I say "my tank has defensive skills, but they're completely useless if I'm the initiator". Those 2 situations are exactly the same. So now, just reread what you wrote there and replace the context of tank with rogue, and you'll see that your problem is simply with the design of the rogue in Ashes, rather than CC immunity. You want CCs work, because rogue has them and you want rogue to be able to use those as an initiator, even though Steven made an explicit change for them to be unable to do that (as opposed to an L2 rogue who could stun a green player with one of his skills).
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Youre saying you have the balls to engage first everytime, and yet you seem to be afraid of getting attacked by a player at 100% initially? Thats a contradiction if I ever saw one. You keep arguing that greens have a HUUUUGE advantage because we can't use CCs. And you even bring up a potential design where tanks have CCs, which they wouldn't be able to use in an initiation. I'm saying that I have the balls to be the first one to flag, because I don't care about this "advantage" of the green player. I'm willing to be the first one to be hit with CCs, because I know that my opponent will now have a CC on cd, so I'll have more tools than him to win.
Dolyem wrote: » You are arguing that a tank is at a similar limitation because their roles focus on defense and that their many abilities that rely on being attacked makes them less efficient at attacking a non-combatant than a role that focuses on offense and excels at doing so.
Dolyem wrote: » In a fight, the attacked player gets hard CCed. This player then decides to use a class ability to CC break. The attacking players CC abilities are useless on that player for the next 5 seconds.
Dolyem wrote: » My argument is less about greens having an advantage and that, by design, it is bad to prevent a player from using their full kit. I'm still proposing actual non-combatants get the benefits of CC immunity. I just don't think anyone with the intent to fight back should be able to utilize the affect since it automatically takes away pieces of attackers skill kits by default.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » You are arguing that a tank is at a similar limitation because their roles focus on defense and that their many abilities that rely on being attacked makes them less efficient at attacking a non-combatant than a role that focuses on offense and excels at doing so. No, I'm arguing that, in Ashes, rogues might be in the same position as tanks, where their abilities are only effective when someone's being attacked or in pve (when someone's always at a danger of an attack. Except rogues are even at a greater advantage than tanks/healers/bards, cause their CCs still work against flagged/corrupted, even if those players don't want to do anything with you. It is simply how the game is designed. You dislike that design and that's ok.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » In a fight, the attacked player gets hard CCed. This player then decides to use a class ability to CC break. The attacking players CC abilities are useless on that player for the next 5 seconds. I hope I'm misunderstanding you here and you're not saying "CC immunity only works for 5 seconds". Cause if you do mean that - I got nothing else to say in this discussion.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » My argument is less about greens having an advantage and that, by design, it is bad to prevent a player from using their full kit. I'm still proposing actual non-combatants get the benefits of CC immunity. I just don't think anyone with the intent to fight back should be able to utilize the affect since it automatically takes away pieces of attackers skill kits by default. When you flag - you know the risks. Those risks include your victim retaliating. Also, those risk include the chance of literally anyone around you immediately CCing/attacking you, so the victim wouldn't even need to do anything. So why is it ok for them to hit you, but not the victim? Those others would even be at a bigger advantage over you, because they won't have any abilities on CD, unlike you who just used something to hit your target. All in all, as I've been saying, greens are protected for a reason. Rogues can do a ton of other shit to greens and won't need CCs for it. Other archetypes have abilities that are useless in an initiation, so it's completely fine for rogues to be one of them (it even splits the archetypes in half in this context). Good pvpers won't let their prey do whatever it wants, while they jerk off in a corner.
Texas wrote: » Giving certain classes the ability to utterly evade a core game system would not be ideal.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Yeah, ok, I'm done with this discussion. I've already said as much as I can about it and it's obvious that repeating any of it won't get us anywhere. Steven decided to not let greens get CCed. I like that and want that to stay in the game, because it makes pvp fairer for both sides. I discussed this with 2 of my L2 friends and they had literally the same opinion as me, so I'm not the only one who agrees with the fairness angle. Intrepid have all the feedback I can give on this topic.
Dygz wrote: » Why does a Rogue need CC advantage when initiating PvP. There's already Stealth advantage. Typically Rogue's have high DPS burst damage - especially from Stealth. Likely solo targets will already have several disadvantages when they aren't anticipating an attack. Pacifists should probably be free of CC if they are intended to have a chance to escape when they choose not to fight back. But... really... That is what A2 is for.
Dygz wrote: » I don't think I questioned who it will affect? I understand your complaint. Doesn't mean that your complaint overrides non-toxic gameplay for those who wish to remain Non-Combatants. Why is it that in Soccer, you can't catch touch the ball with your hands when running down the field? Players don't have 100% access to their physical skills. Those are the rules. Why is it that in Basketball, you can't Travel with the ball after you stop running with it? Those are the rules. Games typically come with restrictive rules. Some people will not like all of the rules. That's the way games work. We'll be able to asses the balance better later during A2.
Dolyem wrote: » All around the premise of negating a players abilities for engaging someone is a bad design that punishes the player for doing something not specified as griefing.
