"Focused" Ability Modifier

[Andius the Afflicted]

Ideascale wrote:

"Focused" would be an ability modifier that disabled the usage of an ability while sprinting but unlike stationary allows it's useage when moving but not sprinting.

Upvoting this proposal shows you support Goblinworks adding "focused" to the list of modifiers for abilities to use in balancing different feats.

Downvoting means you oppose adding "focused" to the game or it's usage on any ability.

This idea is not meant to crowdforge which abilities it will be used on and when it will be implemented. Simply to put it on the table for further crowdforging.

*Thanks to Caldeathe Baequiannia for suggesting the name for this modifier*

Unlike the ideascale I'd like to use this topic to talk a bit about which abilities people feel should get this modifier. I'll use the ideascale to address any questions and concerns directly related to the idea.

[Andius the Afflicted]

So my initial inclination is all ranged abilities which didn't have stationary prior to the band-aid, and heals.

I think the ranged abilities are a bit self explanitory. The reason I say heals is because I can see self-heals being very overpowered when retreating from PvP. If you have any speed modifiers, and you start sprinting away while heal spamming and head for the safety of the nearest friendly town I don't see how you could die.

I could see traders all being being evangelists with travel domain that sprint from town to town spamming "freedom" and "cure" if anyone tries to harm them.

[KoTC Edam Neadenil]

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

I could see traders all being being evangelists with travel domain that sprint from town to town spamming "freedom" and "cure" if anyone tries to harm them.

Evangelist is probably the worst of the three cleric armor feats to do that. Crusader get s heavy armor and Healer gets +1 regen. What Evangelist has going for it is a bonus to ranged and divine attacks - not that handy in a fast travel build.

[<Kabal>Keign]

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

If you have any speed modifiers, and you start sprinting away while heal spamming and head for the safety of the nearest friendly town I don't see how you could die.

I could see traders all being being evangelists with travel domain that sprint from town to town spamming "freedom" and "cure" if anyone tries to harm them.

You could easily die to superior firepower, even spamming cure. - Okay actually that is presumptuous. I have no idea if constantly self-healing could effectively prevent the damage dealt by a player or two, but it seems unlikely to me, considering the rate of healing versus the rate of damage I have seen.

A single player out to kill you would be unlikely to succeed, perhaps, but an organized group is just as much likely to take you down, unless they are not attempting to use Immobilize, Knockdown, or anything else that will slow you. Even with many stacks of Freedom (which generally only last a brief time in any case) someone is going to 'roll' well and stop you from fleeing. (Unless you get lucky - in which case, good for you!)

Honestly, these tactics seem like simply intelligent things to do, as a trader. It's not as if they should be expected to walk around with no survival skills in case they get ambushed.

That said, I do support Focused existing, simply because it seems like it would be the optimal choice for many things that would require Concentration checks in the PnP game.

[Kadere]

Andius made a thread a don't hate! The demon in him must have passed on to someone else (and I think I know to whom).

I think this is a great idea in the generalities, it seems like a potent tool for the balancing of ranged abilities in particular. I don't feel like it should be applied to heals, and maybe not weak ranged attacks/cantrips - but definitely strong/high-alpha ranged attacks/spells.

[Andius the Afflicted]

KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

I could see traders all being being evangelists with travel domain that sprint from town to town spamming "freedom" and "cure" if anyone tries to harm them.

Evangelist is probably the worst of the three cleric armor feats to do that. Crusader get s heavy armor and Healer gets +1 regen. What Evangelist has going for it is a bonus to ranged and divine attacks - not that handy in a fast travel build.

It's the speed boost that is good. I believe evangelist/travel domain is the fastest possible build currently in the game.

Also does the divine bonus affect healing at all or just damage?

[Andius the Afflicted]

<Kabal>Keign wrote:

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

If you have any speed modifiers, and you start sprinting away while heal spamming and head for the safety of the nearest friendly town I don't see how you could die.

I could see traders all being being evangelists with travel domain that sprint from town to town spamming "freedom" and "cure" if anyone tries to harm them.

You could easily die to superior firepower, even spamming cure. - Okay actually that is presumptuous. I have no idea if constantly self-healing could effectively prevent the damage dealt by a player or two, but it seems unlikely to me, considering the rate of healing versus the rate of damage I have seen.

Well there are a few things to keep in mind.

1. Every ranged attack is becoming stationary, and we don't know what state they will be in when that band-aid gets pulled off but I think it may be safe to assume the days of sprinting full speed while spamming ranged attacks are over for good.

2. Armor decreases incoming damage but not incoming heals. My crusader heals himself much more quickly than he takes damage as a general rule. I actually sit there and heal myself to full while fighting a group without bothering to evade sometimes. I'd assume a good set of medium armor + healspam would still be very hard to take down.

3. As stated above if you go evangelist + travel that is the fastest possible character in the game. Nobody can keep up with you except other evangelist/travel characters.

So you can die but... it's going to be hard. Very hard.

[Nightdrifter]

I don't think the speed bonus from travel domain (class feature) will stack with evangelist (armor), though I haven't tested it.

Here Stephen points out that Protection domain's (class feature) effect of bonus resistance won't stack with Unbreakable's (armor) bonus resistance due to being on the same channel. The speed bonuses are pretty much identical to those resistance bonuses in terms of where they are listed so presumably the same non-stacking applies.

[KarlBob]

I support focused as a good middle ground between stationary and no movement restriction at all.

[Andius the Afflicted]

Nightdrifter wrote:

I don't think the speed bonus from travel domain (class feature) will stack with evangelist (armor), though I haven't tested it.

Here Stephen points out that Protection domain's (class feature) effect of bonus resistance won't stack with Unbreakable's (armor) bonus resistance due to being on the same channel. The speed bonuses are pretty much identical to those resistance bonuses in terms of where they are listed so presumably the same non-stacking applies.

Hmmmm. If that's the case a travel domain/crusader is the best. Which may actually be even more broken because that means only other travel domain clerics can keep up with you and self-healing crusaders are the best tanks in the game at this point.

[DeciusBrutus]

Worth noting is that such a traveling cleric dies to spammed Downburst or any ranged attack that slows, immobilizes, knocks down, or does whatever it is that goblin bombers do.

And clerics needs to heal allies who might be moving.

[Being]

I loathe scope creep. I believe it may be shortsighted to propose a permanent modifier in response to a temporary stop-gap measure.

The justification that 'We don't know it will go away', in light of the developer's assurance that it will go away, is a justification by way of distrusting the developer, and implies a disrespect I don't want to own.

[celestialiar]

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

I could see traders all being being evangelists with travel domain that sprint from town to town spamming "freedom" and "cure" if anyone tries to harm them.

haha.

Money falling out of their pockets... you wouldn't kill a holy man, would you? Have mercy! - sprint, heal. -

This game is in its infancy (the recurring thing I realize whenever I think about these ideas.) I just want GW to push to make stuff more advanced. Not entirely sure this discussion can be had because we don't know even what a minimum viable (not talking EE launch, but truly decent) product will look like.

[Being]

They have us to light the darkness, but we must rely on them to choose their way.

[Stephen Cheney]

Nightdrifter wrote:

I don't think the speed bonus from travel domain (class feature) will stack with evangelist (armor), though I haven't tested it.

Here Stephen points out that Protection domain's (class feature) effect of bonus resistance won't stack with Unbreakable's (armor) bonus resistance due to being on the same channel. The speed bonuses are pretty much identical to those resistance bonuses in terms of where they are listed so presumably the same non-stacking applies.

Currently correct. I should be getting tech to create more nuance over what stacks soonish (it's currently low priority, but fairly easy to program), so I'm presently in the planning stages of trying to assign channels such that things that should reasonably stack will (and those that shouldn't, continue not to).

[Andius the Afflicted]

Being wrote:

I loathe scope creep. I believe it may be shortsighted to propose a permanent modifier in response to a temporary stop-gap measure.

The justification that 'We don't know it will go away', in light of the developer's assurance that it will go away, is a justification by way of distrusting the developer, and implies a disrespect I don't want to own.

With the % of support on my last two ideas the fact you have downvoted both of them, this time being the only person to do so, has me convinced you are simply down voting anything with my name attached.

That's unfortunate, but not greatly surprising from you or concerning to me.

It seems most people can see the value of this modifier as a permanent part of the balance arsenal. Even many who generally don't see eye to
eye with me on PFO politics, and I'd like to thank them for their maturity in that regard.

[Being]

No, Andius. I downvoted them both because you are arguing for lasting changes in reaction to short-term issues.

[Hogar, Freevale]

Being wrote:

you are arguing for lasting changes in reaction to short-term issues.

Even if he did, the idea is good. I upvoted because i think the mechanic is good. More options/diversity in combat is to my liking.

[Being]

Hogar, Freevale wrote:

Being wrote:

you are arguing for lasting changes in reaction to short-term issues.

Even if he did, the idea is good. I upvoted because i think the mechanic is good. More options/diversity in combat is to my liking.

That is why there is an upvoting tool. But on both issues my downvote wasn't personal, some anti-Andius vendetta even if he prefers to imagine it is. I like to think about things and speak my mind once I have. I am open to considerations that might change my mind.

You feel it was good idea. I don't know your reasoning but it differs from my current conclusion. There was little explanation of what 'focused' means unless we infer something based on current issues the community has raised. There was mention that the substance of it would be developed through conversation, but if there is no substance then what are we upvoting? How is it a good idea?

[Caldeathe Baequiannia]

Being wrote:

No, Andius. I downvoted them both because you are arguing for lasting changes in reaction to short-term issues.

That's the point, though. The devs have some plans that they hope (when implemented) will remove the need for rooting. Andius has suggested an alternative for us to consider. We don't know their plans (other than some indications that it partially involves the ammo), but this is a reasonable option for balancing ranged attacks. Whether it ends up being the one they implement or not, the devs should know if the community thinks it's a viable option. To vote it down because it is "arguing for lasting changes in reaction to short-term issues" is to (I think) misunderstand the intent. We need some long term answers.

[Being]

Thanks Cal, here was nothing mentioned in ideascale that it was intended to address the problem with rooting ranged attacks. The ideascale wording said that what 'focused' would attach to would be something worked out later.

That is something like asking for a blank check.

[Hogar, Freevale]

Being wrote:

There was mention that the substance of it would be developed through conversation, but if there is no substance then what are we upvoting? How is it a good idea?

One more modifier in combat alone is enough substance from my pov. Having attacks working only when walking or running, not sprinting, adds more tactical depth in my opinion. What attacks this modifier should be applied to, i leave for the devs to decide.

Of course, i respect your opinion, though. I am not here to tutor you. Yor decission is yours and yours alone.

[Being]

Okay, but one more modifier per player can add up. We have professional designers minding the resources so we can propose assuming they will dispose as needed, but if the initial design scope did not include this 'focus' what makes us think that what they already have designed doesn't include the same functionality?

Fine, go on ahead with your desire for more options. The developers are professionals and can consider your preference. To me what is proposed is the very definition of scope creep.

If you don't really know what it is you are asking them to include, what happens to the argument that it is needed?

[<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves]

I would prefer this if it gave some bonus when stationary and using ranged attacks compared to moving and attacking.

I guess this would just be an amendment to the stated idea. You could also think of it as a negative while moving instead of a bonus while stationary.

[Nihimon]

Stephen Cheney wrote:

I should be getting tech to create more nuance over what stacks soonish (it's currently low priority, but fairly easy to program), so I'm presently in the planning stages of trying to assign channels such that things that should reasonably stack will (and those that shouldn't, continue not to).

Does that mean the fix to let Elven Racial Benefit's Arcane Attack Bonus stack with purchased Arcane Attack Bonus is low priority? I thought this was all related.

[Andius the Afflicted]

Being wrote:

No, Andius. I downvoted them both because you are arguing for lasting changes in reaction to short-term issues.

No. Actually I believe this is a good permanent feature for the game. The fact it can be applied to the current ranged situation is great but it's also useful in balancing other abilities as well.

Also I focus on permanent systems because I don't believe in wasting time on temporary systems.

[Stephen Cheney]

Nihimon wrote:

Stephen Cheney wrote:

I should be getting tech to create more nuance over what stacks soonish (it's currently low priority, but fairly easy to program), so I'm presently in the planning stages of trying to assign channels such that things that should reasonably stack will (and those that shouldn't, continue not to).

Does that mean the fix to let Elven Racial Benefit's Arcane Attack Bonus stack with purchased Arcane Attack Bonus is low priority? I thought this was all related.

Got enough of the the rudiments of the tech in to make racials their own thing and fix the big bug now. Expanding those rudiments into a fully customizable system was more effort that wasn't directly relevant to fixing the bug, so it's a feature that has to go up against other feature implementation priorities.

[Hardin Steele]

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

Being wrote:

No, Andius. I downvoted them both because you are arguing for lasting changes in reaction to short-term issues.

No. Actually I believe this is a good permanent feature for the game. The fact it can be applied to the current ranged situation is great but it's also useful in balancing other abilities as well.

Also I focus on permanent systems because I don't believe in wasting time on temporary systems.

If it turns out the problem is a temporary one, the solution should be temporary until the perm fix is in. I see beings point also as why waste programmers time with a temp issue if the perm fix is already in the hopper. Hard to know until the issue is discussed. so this is a discussion. Leave personal stuff out of it.

[Kadere]

I personally don't view this as a fix to the problem that ranged attacks are currently rooted. It seems like a useful balancing tool for the devs to have regardless.

That happens to also solve the rooting problem is only tangentially relevant, really.

[Caldeathe Baequiannia]

Kadere wrote:

I personally don't view this as a fix to the problem that ranged attacks are currently rooted. It seems like a useful balancing tool for the devs to have regardless.

That happens to also solve the rooting problem is only tangentially relevant, really.

It's a fix in that rooting only exists temporarily to provide some balance, which this suggestion is intended to provide in a different way, and more permanently.

[Kadere]

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:

Kadere wrote:

I personally don't view this as a fix to the problem that ranged attacks are currently rooted. It seems like a useful balancing tool for the devs to have regardless.

That happens to also solve the rooting problem is only tangentially relevant, really.

It's a fix in that rooting only exists temporarily to provide some balance, which this suggestion is intended to provide in a different way, and more permanently.

If it were to be applied across the board, sure. But I see it as another screwdriver for the toolbox, rather than a blanket thrown over all ranged attacks.

I see this condition being applied to particularly strong attacks, ranged or otherwise, as another option to offset raw power other than increased stamina cost.

I guess you could say that I support the condition (and I upvoted the Ideascale appropriately), even though I don't agree with the currently lines of thinking about its usage.