Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like for as much detail as is practical to be difficult to discern for the "mystery" and for (IMO) the excitement that adds to smaller engagements.
Yes there would probably be workarounds anyway and I would be disadvantaged in some situations because of them, but I will still be feeling that sense of "mystery" and the excitement that it causes, so I am ok with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While Stephen Cheney is right about obfuscation of information being a problem my main issue is the pre combat information. At that point it is possible to limit the available information as there is no combat to parse. In addition the information that needs to be sent to the client only needs to be the codes for the actual gear appearance. There is no need for the client to have at this point any information about the keywords on the gear and while I can understand some keywords such as "flaming" being visible I see no reason whatsoever that most need to be.
It is the precombat phase where the risk comes in deciding whether to engage or not. (Note I am assuming that there will be ways to prevent your foe disengaging and fleeing, and yes I also expect there to be countermeasures. Nevertheless it is usually the case that once engaged it is harder to escape)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I hope it's practical to keep such information hidden without providing an unnecessary and unfair advantage to players who are willing to use third party hacks, or players who are simply more technically adept.
Also...
(Note I am assuming that there will be ways to prevent your foe disengaging and fleeing, and yes I also expect there to be countermeasures. Nevertheless it is usually the case that once engaged it is harder to escape)
Relatively unskilled characters will not beat relatively well equipped high skilled characters in fights. But they should be able to try to run away without always being killed no matter what. And a low skill character and a medium skill character working together should be a good match for a high skilled well equipped character; not a 50/50 fight, but a high enough chance of victory that the high skilled character has to consider death a reasonable potential.
We want a flatter power curve than most of the theme park games. But not a flat one. The case we're trying to avoid is high skill character one-shotting every low-skill character it fights, and low-skill characters being totally unable to do any (meaningful) damage to a high-skill, well equipped character.
I would like to see the ability for players to get away.I agree. If "run away" is a meaningful option, we can train players to do so. Ideally there would be some aspect of the game mechanic that allowed you to execute a retreat within a narrow window of time, and if you did so, you'd almost always escape.
Obviously this shouldn't apply to ambushes, but rather to the situation where for example, a character is harvesting something and an unknown other character enters the area but before contact is made between the two.
Too many games with PvP end up with a situation where "running away" is never a viable option which breeds fatalism and defeatism.
RyanD
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There will probably be cases where the outcome is decided by the starting conditions. That will occur just as often regardless of how well-known the starting conditions are.
Having more information regarding whether an opponent was within the region of "Player skill will be important in this fight" seems like it should be a good thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No snares and stuns then...?
I don't think that's a foregone conclusion with respect to snares. Ryan just talked about executing a retreat "within a narrow window of time".
With respect to stuns, it's likely more complicated, but it seems they're certainly not already ruled out.
It's highly likely that something like Hold Person will be in the game.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The current plan (which has not been extensively playtested for feel) is that most crowd controls are extremely short duration (2 seconds standard), only on attacks with cooldowns and/or conditional on somewhat complex setups, and use up a significant portion of an attack's "budget" such that it will be much less effective in damage and/or other effects to a non-crowd-control attack. Currently, some of the more powerful expendables are penciled in as having longer crowd controls (up to two rounds at the highest level), but that may be way too long and we're happy to wheel them back if it proves so. Finally, all crowd controls apply stacks of Freedom or Mind Blank, which make it harder and harder to land subsequent crowd control.
So ideally it should take a coordinated team effort or someone blowing Power to lock you down for even a round at a time. Even if that's accomplished, locking you down for multiple rounds will get harder and harder as your stacks of resistance improve.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the design element of "Doing the same thing repeatedly makes it less effective" being applied to almost everything? I think that idea would directly oppose the behavior of 'flavor of the month' or 'ideal DPS' build, by making them add less than linearly when grouped with each other.
The current plan (which has not been extensively playtested for feel) is that most crowd controls are extremely short duration (2 seconds standard), only on attacks with cooldowns and/or conditional on somewhat complex setups, and use up a significant portion of an attack's "budget" such that it will be much less effective in damage and/or other effects to a non-crowd-control attack. Currently, some of the more powerful expendables are penciled in as having longer crowd controls (up to two rounds at the highest level), but that may be way too long and we're happy to wheel them back if it proves so. Finally, all crowd controls apply stacks of Freedom or Mind Blank, which make it harder and harder to land subsequent crowd control.
So ideally it should take a coordinated team effort or someone blowing Power to lock you down for even a round at a time. Even if that's accomplished, locking you down for multiple rounds will get harder and harder as your stacks of resistance improve.
So in many respects we may be running with dedicated tacklers as we do in Eve who have the primary task of locking the opponent in place so the dps can kill him
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Steelwing, based on Stephen's quote it would seem that you would need someone dedicated to it to stunlock/snarelock someone for even 10 seconds. So the idea of tacklers (which I take to be people whose purpose is shutting down the opponent via crowd control, but tell me if that guess is wrong) does seem like a possibility.
A tackler in Eve terminology is someone in a small fast ship who has the job if getting in range of a target as quickly as possible and then use snare type abilities to prevent it from warping off before the dps can get there and kill it.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
A tackler in Eve terminology is someone in a small fast ship who has the job if getting in range of a target as quickly as possible and then use snare type abilities to prevent it from warping off before the dps can get there and kill it.
What did you read that led to the conclusion that a dedicated tackler was a niche that can be filled effectively? What I saw was that keeping someone locked down for more than a tiny amount of time would be prohibitively hard.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A tackler in Eve terminology is someone in a small fast ship who has the job if getting in range of a target as quickly as possible and then use snare type abilities to prevent it from warping off before the dps can get there and kill it.What did you read that led to the conclusion that a dedicated tackler was a niche that can be filled effectively? What I saw was that keeping someone locked down for more than a tiny amount of time would be prohibitively hard.
Prohibitively hard is not the same as impossible. Someone dedicated could potentially have enough power to overcome the first few stacks of freedom or mind blank. Either way, that person will slow down the target or targets enough to get effective dps on them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A tackler in Eve terminology is someone in a small fast ship who has the job if getting in range of a target as quickly as possible and then use snare type abilities to prevent it from warping off before the dps can get there and kill it.What did you read that led to the conclusion that a dedicated tackler was a niche that can be filled effectively? What I saw was that keeping someone locked down for more than a tiny amount of time would be prohibitively hard.
After reading Stephen's bit, I was thinking it might still be possible, but there would be very little time between the tackle and the dps needing to reach the target - like 1 round/6 seconds. But there's also the possibility that multiple tacklers can still manage to stun/snare a single target. It might take more tacklers each round to have a comfortable chance of success.
edit: But I think this ignores the other mechanics of the gamespace - the Duke of Umptyfratz still has to escape. He isn't a capital ship with the ability to warp away.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Prohibitively hard is not the same as impossible.Actually, it is.
1. serving or tending to prohibit or forbid something.
2. sufficing to prevent the use, purchase, etc., of something: prohibitive prices.
tending to prohibit
sufficing to preventYou know that means trying to prevent it from happening but not impossible right?
pro·hib·i·tive (prō-hĭb′ĭ-tĭv) also pro·hib·i·to·ry (-tôr′ē, -tōr′ē)
adj.
1. Prohibiting; forbidding: took prohibitive measures.
2. So high or burdensome as to discourage purchase or use: prohibitive prices.
3. So likely to win as to discourage competition: the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination.
Think about the definitions you posted, they are telling you that... Porhibitively hard is not the same as impossible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have to agree with Xeen on this one.
If the devs hard-code a limit of 5 Settlements per Nation, then it's impossible to have 6 Settlements in a Nation.
If the devs scale the cost of adding Settlements to a Nation such that there simply aren't enough resources in the game to add a 6th, then there are semantic reasons to say it's "prohibitively hard".
The end result is the same. It can't be done.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have to agree with Xeen on this one.If the devs hard-code a limit of 5 Settlements per Nation, then it's impossible to have 6 Settlements in a Nation.
If the devs scale the cost of adding Settlements to a Nation such that there simply aren't enough resources in the game to add a 6th, then there are semantic reasons to say it's "prohibitively hard".
The end result is the same. It can't be done.
prohibitively hard does not fit there, Impossible does... if there arent enough resources to do it, then its impossible. If there are enough resources to make a 6th settlement, but the cost is so high that you would be stupid to do it... then its prohibitive.
Having 10 stacks of freedom on you makes it prohibitively hard for me to be successful casting hold person on you. I can do it, but it is unlikely to happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I won't stay here and argue about something so silly. I will let you guys have at it. How unfortunate that we need to quibble over definitions even from dictionaries.
If they meant impossible, they should have used the word. If they meant that the mechanics are not fleshed out enough to know for certain, they should have written: TBD.
YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What did you read that led to the conclusion that a dedicated tackler was a niche that can be filled effectively? What I saw was that keeping someone locked down for more than a tiny amount of time would be prohibitively hard.
For me it would be for a couple of reasons.
so CC lasts a short amount of time, and as you have it stacked on you you develop a resistance until its no longer effective. He also mentioned Mind blank and freedom of movement, which effects two different types of control, basically physical and mental. This looks like that would be a spell like charm would be on a different resistance counter than something like web.
The goal of those types of characters is not to ensure that they can stunlock someone for 5 minutes, its to ensure that the maximum amount of CC will happen.
We also know that some attacks will trigger off of keywords placed on the target. So if the DPS in your group is setup to trigger off of Bleed and flatfooted key words the designated CCer can be equiped and sloted for utility. if they provide CC, then also provide all the setup keywords for the DPS, that means the DPS saves time and resources by not having to use setup attacks, they just get straight into the hurt.
So in a game like this even a 4 second window where say their cleric cannot heal can put you in the position where you have the advantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I won't stay here and argue about something so silly. I will let you guys have at it. How unfortunate that we need to quibble over definitions even from dictionaries.
If they meant impossible, they should have used the word. If they meant that the mechanics are not fleshed out enough to know for certain, they should have written: TBD.
YMMV.
Your right of course
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon, the reason seems to me to be thus: if Mind Blank/Freedom didn't exist, one could keep the enemy CC'ed while still maintaining DPS on them. Because those buffs exist which lower the duration of further CCs, you'll need someone dedicated to keeping them in place to pull it off for any reasonable amount of time; hence why we would see "dedicated tacklers" as opposed to just "tacklers". Could be I was focusing on the wrong word here though. :)
Thanks for the definition, Steelwing.
Welcome and @the dissenters....when I am talking about tacklers in PfO terms I am envisaging characters who have concentrated every available skill slot and keyword into locking another player in place. I am not simply talking about someone who has slotted one or two cc abilities
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because those buffs exist which lower the duration of further CCs, you'll need someone dedicated to keeping them in place to pull it off for any reasonable amount of time...
From what I read, it sounds like Crowd Control effects will quickly reach a point where they are no longer effective.
... when I am talking about tacklers in PfO terms I am envisaging characters who have concentrated every available skill slot and keyword into locking another player in place...
And still, the way I read it, even such specialized Characters will not be able to lock another Character down for more than a short time.
My understanding is that there is a general acknowledgement that being stun-locked sucks, and Goblinworks doesn't want to make that a common experience. If it's possible to build a Character or a team that is capable locking other Characters down for significant periods of time, then it will become commonplace.
There's still room for Characters who specialize in maximizing their ability to stun-lock other Characters. And an Old Vet with awesome gear might even be able to stun-lock a newbie long enough to kill him without the newbie ever getting to do anything at all. I just don't think even a large team of Old Vets in awesome gear being able to effectively stun lock another Old Vet in awesome gear for more than a "tiny amount of time".
Maybe I'm misreading the devs and they actually do want to put their players into a situation where they feel like helpless victims. But I doubt it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Locking an opponent in place is not the same as stunlocking I should point out. All I am referring to is stopping a character from running away. I am not suggesting they are locked in place and unable to act merely slowing them to a walking pace is fine apart from that I am quite happy for them to be able to attack and react.
Eve tacklers do much the same thing. They prevent warp they do not prevent or affect the ability to fight back. That is the job of ECM boats but those are not what we are referring to.
I for one would be quite happy for a game without stunlocks of any form even the most brief. Snares are all that is needed and naturally snare breaking abilities
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It should be noted, in any talk about tacklers, that they are one of the most newbie friendly roles in EvE Online. If you are playing EvE Online as a new player interested in PvP, it is almost a certainty that the first organisation you join will have you running tackle for their operations. It is relatively low skill, both for the player and the character, but remains vitally important for successful small scale PvP.
Having characters capable of seriously impacting someones ability to run away, while strongly reducing their own ability to actually kill, is an extremely useful mechanic to have. It means that everyone can have a place in PvP gangs, even those not well trained in actual combat skills.
It should be noted, in any talk about tacklers, that they are one of the most newbie friendly roles in EvE Online. If you are playing EvE Online as a new player interested in PvP, it is almost a certainty that the first organisation you join will have you running tackle for their operations. It is relatively low skill, both for the player and the character, but remains vitally important for successful small scale PvP.Having characters capable of seriously impacting someones ability to run away, while strongly reducing their own ability to actually kill, is an extremely useful mechanic to have. It means that everyone can have a place in PvP gangs, even those not well trained in actual combat skills.
While true for Eve I have no evidence this will be true for PfO so I was hesitant to mention it. Morbis is correct though even a week old newbie in eve can be useful in fleet fights as a tackler
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Locking an opponent in place is not the same as stunlocking I should point out. All I am referring to is stopping a character from running away.
I understand the distinction. I strongly disagree that being able to stop a character from running away is a good thing. I believe my thoughts on this are congruent with Ryan's.
Too many games with PvP end up with a situation where "running away" is never a viable option which breeds fatalism and defeatism.
Relatively unskilled characters will not beat relatively well equipped high skilled characters in fights. But they should be able to try to run away without always being killed no matter what.
Locking an opponent in place is not the same as stunlocking I should point out. All I am referring to is stopping a character from running away.I understand the distinction. I strongly disagree that being able to stop a character from running away is a good thing. I believe my thoughts on this are congruent with Ryan's.
If you understand the distinction why did you start talking about stun locking then?
As to Ryan's quote the key word in that is in bold
Relatively unskilled characters will not beat relatively well equipped high skilled characters in fights. But they should be able to try to run away without always being killed no matter what.
This to me says snares will be in and will be effective but there will be the means to counteract them. If you use those means you will escape sometimes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon That's fair. But if a player has the ability to try to run away, that might also allow another player the opportunity to try to prevent it.
A simple example: say a character can click [escape] to break out of combat. The probability might be dependent on how close he is to enemy combatants or how many rounds have passed since he either attacked or was attacked. If that was the mechanic in place, then a lightly armored (for max speed) characters could close with the character who is attempting to escape, in order to decrease the P% of a successful break from combat. That lightly armored guy is a tackler - there will (almost certainly) be such a role; it will just be modified depending on whatever rules apply to breaking from a combat.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In EVE, a ship that is a good tackler is a poor damage dealer. So tackling is something you do with a group (and a group with a tackler is a much better fleet than one without).
In EVE, fast travel is available at the click of a button. And if you get into fast travel mode, you're gone (barring the very obscure corner case of warp disrupt bubbles).
So in EVE, not having a tackler often means that you can't complete a combat engagement - your targets will all flee. Having a tackler means that each tackler in your fleet can keep one (basically) target from fleeing - but each tackler is also a sub-optimal damage dealer. If the tackler keeps the valuable shipment of ore from warping out, it's defenders may have to stay and try to fight free of the entanglement.
In Pathfinder Online fast travel will not be available at the click of a button. You'll have to actually run away from fights. So the dynamic in Pathfinder Online will be different than the all or nothing "escape button" approach in EVE. It's much more likely that people will start running from any group that they detect trying to get out of the area before a fight starts.
In Pathfinder Online we might want to mimic the tackling ability in EVE with the ability to slow down a target. Assuming we have some set of gear/abilities that let you flee at a higher rate of speed than normal travel, the counter should be gear/abilities that reduce that speed by some amount. This could be a place where you could end up with an arms race between "get away" technology and "slow them down" technology - in other words you might still be able to flee even if someone is trying to slow you down because they're not able to slow you down enough. If we really wanted an EVE analog (and I'm not sure we do), while slowing someone down you should not be able to do anything else very combat-useful.
One reason this is a worthwhile system to consider building is that it gives very new characters a very good use in mass combat. In EVE you can be an effective tackler with a very short amount of skill training and very cheap ships & fittings. Having tacklers is good for fleets so there's a built in incentive to recruit some newbies, who can't necessarily do much damage dealing anyway, and let them tackle opponents. The fleet gets some tackling capacity, the newbies see how fleet fights work (and watch the spectacle) while contributing meaningfully.
If we could design a similar system for Pathfinder Online it would have similar benefits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@nihilmon
thats how i hope it is. To lock someone down for your group you need to be training and slotting abilities that have slows/snares. It should be something that a character can do easily with a hamstring skill then all dps skills.
@ryan
given mind blank/freedom of movement will there be two different categories of CC and different reductions in effectiveness, or will all CC share the same resistances.
I would also like to see things like confusion where it causes your character to go in random directions when you move for a very brief time.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
In general, Mind Blank comes from and protects against "crowd control" that keeps you from taking actions (or alters control of your actions, e.g., Confusion), but not from moving. Freedom comes from and protects against anything that keeps you from moving. So Nausea (can move but not use actions) is Mind Blank and Immobilize (can act but can't move) is Freedom.
Things that do both (like a full Stun that prevents you from both moving and taking actions) go under Freedom.
Apart from anything else some sort of snare will be necessary possibly to allow melee to close to fighting distance with ranged. The kiting ranged player is always a problem otherwise.
Personally my view is that someone sacrificing their dps in order to be a tackle is a meaningful choice that should be rewarded by a reasonable level of effectiveness. Should the tackled have no chance? Of course not but it should be certainly harder to escape than against someone who has one or two snares slotted.
Apart from anything else some sort of snare will be necessary possibly to allow melee to close to fighting distance with ranged. The kiting ranged player is always a problem otherwise.
I'm keen to play a ranged type of character that can 'tackle' the opposition to allow my party members to close on the target. Nothing like sneaking into bow range, pumping a few arrows into your targets hamstrings/legs and then having the large, frothing at the mouth greatsword wielding barbarian enter the fray to assist you :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Differing move speeds and gap-closing abilities might mean that kiting is ineffective. Another consideration is that kiting away from a melee opponent means you are constantly granting him Opportunity; though we don't know the specifics of what that means yet, we know that's something you don't want to be giving your opponents. Lots of variables to determine before we know whether a melee will constantly have issues with kiting ranged characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apart from anything else some sort of snare will be necessary possibly to allow melee to close to fighting distance with ranged. The kiting ranged player is always a problem otherwise.I'm keen to play a ranged type of character that can 'tackle' the opposition to allow my party members to close on the target. Nothing like sneaking into bow range, pumping a few arrows into your targets hamstrings/legs and then having the large, frothing at the mouth greatsword wielding barbarian enter the fray to assist you :)
I often use the same type of strategy with my rogues. I'll pop off a few arrows to hamper the enemy while the fighter/barbarian types go in to engage. Then when the enemy is focused on them, I slip behind and flank them for a sneak attack.