Goblin Squad Member
|
In EVE the basic tackler role takes about two hours of training to use one piece of equipment that usually costs no more than three or four beginner missions worth of coin. Double that to add an optional slowing device.
Steelwing mentioned someone that had trained and slotted every possible snaring affect, magical to combat feat I assume. Because as far as I know there is no one thing in the PO world that will continuously tackle, until GW says more about that. If a single item solution is not the case
1. a PO tackler will have to train many different skills in many different archetype paths and have piece after piece of dedicated gear and consumables to get as close to the same affect as possible. That seems unlike a low skill low cost role for newbies.
2. that means the tackler won't be able to slot and equip for their own damage or survivability. When EVE tacklers survive it's almost always because they're tackling from a longer range than the target can attack and/or being too small and orbiting around too fast for the target to land a hit.
Can you think of a PO analog for either of those survivability techniques?
I'm still mentally working out how PO tacklers wouldn't be splattered a great deal of the time while their compatriots are closing distance to the catch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Things that do both (like a full Stun that prevents you from both moving and taking actions) go under Freedom.The flaw I see is that you can prevent actions longer by doing full stuns then CCs. Or the other way around.
That might be the point. In order to maximize your ability to CC/snare a target you have to have a variety of both abilities, which would limit the amount of damage abilities that character has.
So a player who wants a little but of CC/snares can get it without too much trouble and can still maintain good damage, but if they wanted more or to be able to juggle CC timers they would have to dedicate to using many different cc abilities and becoming a support character for that engagement.
I like the idea, I think the key to the system is how long will CC last and how long does the cc resistance stick around.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adopting the provisional terminology of Crowd Control (for effects that deny the enemy the ability to act), and Snare (for effects that reduce the movement capability of the enemy):
Melee-range snares seem like they should be relatively cheap and fairly effective, especially if they trigger on the 'opportunity' condition. Once a melee combatant gets next to you, opening up the distance again should not be trivial or unopposed. Since Stacks of the Freedom Buff will add up over time, it isn't something that should be spammed even if the cost is low- it does no good to Snare someone who isn't trying to get away, and trying makes it harder to keep them from fleeing later.
Melee-range Crowd Control, on the other hand, seems like it would be mandatory at any reasonable cost and effectiveness; the best time for Crowd Control is early in a fight, as part of a series of choices that result in temporary vulnerability for some other benefit.
At range, I find the general idea reversed: Ranged combatants gain far more than melee from keeping their opponents Snared, and I expect that there will be tactical abilities that are more effective before the distance is closed. Blocking the enemy's escape or pre-battle buff abilities (at the cost of not using your own pursuit, buff, or other ability with that stamina), seems like a tactically interesting decision to have to make.
My conclusion: Melee types should have some kind of 'unbalancing' effect that can cause an enemy offering Opportunity to lose mobility, and Wizard types should have some kind of Daze-like effect suitable for gaining a small but significant advantage and allowing a well-prepared group to time a multiple-player combo that involves one character opening themselves up to an attack during the time that another character puts Crowd Control on the character who could take advantage of that opening.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My conclusion: Melee types should have some kind of 'unbalancing' effect that can cause an enemy offering Opportunity to lose mobility, and Wizard types should have some kind of Daze-like effect suitable for gaining a small but significant advantage and allowing a well-prepared group to time a multiple-player combo that involves one character opening themselves up to an attack during the time that another character puts Crowd Control on the character who could take advantage of that opening.
Melee> "Shield Bash" (Shield wearer), "Body Slam" (warrior), "Sweeping Kick" (rogue/monk) and "Tackle" (slightly ranged effect) spring to mind as different skills that could perform something of that desired effect. Different skills for different classes.
Caster> "Slow, "Root", "Quake", "Daze", "Stagger", "Fluctuate", and "Shift Equilibrium" could be Caster alternatives.
Ranged> "Hamstring", "Pin", and various poisons that cause hyperkinetic movement etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that I have much to contribute right now. I'm just wanted to say that while I generally agree with the position that less information displayed is better I feel that certain keywords probably should be clearly visible because it would make little sense otherwise.
As a specific example I think a flaming sword should be clearly visible as flaming.
I generally think that crafters should be able to freely customize how the equipment they make looks, but there are certain things you just can't hide.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Escaping from a poorly chosen 1v1 fight seems like it'll be fairly common.
How does this play into assassination? You've already said assassination won't be a 1-shot, so if a target can get away easily then assassins will either need some improved cc abilities or else will always have to hunt in packs to succeed.
|
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.
No, it's not.
Neither definitions here equate to impossible. The first one uses the words "serving or tending" which implies a situation that is not universally so, or that it does have exceptions. The second gives and example, "prohibitive prices" which is again not an impossibility but discouragement.
A quick search of other sources for definitions of "prohibitive" and "prohibitively" turns up the same thing: definitions that do not equate to impossibility, only somewhat approaching impossibility with exceptions clearly implied.
|
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.
"Never a viable option" =/= "sometimes not an option". Same distinction with "no matter what". He says they shouldn't always get killed running away, which does not equate to never get killed, only that it might be possible to run away. How great that possibility will be is not explicit or implicit in his statement, and we can't just assume like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Don't apologize to me for arguing semantics, I love semantic details. If you want to apologize, then do so for mucking it up.
If I thought I'd mucked it up, I'd've apologized for that :)
"This thing is prohibitively expensive, but I can afford it"
"This thing is prohibitively hard to accomplish, but I can do it"
Those sound like oxymorons to me.
I'd be interested if you could find a reasonably citeable example of a professional writer who used "prohibitively hard" to mean "yeah, it can be done".
And I wasn't apologizing to you for descending into a petty argument about semantics...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your own definition that you first cited provided the very example you ask for:
prohibitive prices
Those are prices meant to deter, but not outright prohibit purchase.
Like I already told you, you undermined your own argument from the beginning.
Definitions
adjectiveprohibiting or tending to prohibit
(esp of prices) tending or designed to discourage sale or purchase
source: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/prohibitive
prohibitive
If the cost of something is prohibitive, it is so high that many people cannot afford it.
FORMAL adj
The cost of private treatment can be prohibitive.
♦ prohibitively adv ADV adj
Meat and butter were prohibitively expensive.
source: http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/prohibitive%20price
Prohibitive costs are quite common. Take taxes on tobacco and alcohol: they're both prohibitive but still allow actual purchase. But their purpose is still achieved - to reduce overall consumption.
And that is the case with what the devs have described here: the expressed aim is to reduce the overall number of characters with the discussed capabilities, not to outright eliminate it.
So I've cited two reputable and "professional" dictionaries for you, not to mention the points you missed in your very own citations, and rather than I scour the internet for you, I'm sure you can recall having heard yourself many times the phrase "the prohibitive cost of having children". And yet surprise of surprises, it's not actually impossible to have children.
