Crowd control should not be based on RNG

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.

Not that I really support this solution either but since you all have been pretty 'do or die' irt rng stun while offering no attempt to meet in the middle. So here is my attempt at pulling your sides half to the middle instead.

What are your thoughts on a 'miss' being a partial fail rather than a full fail? That way the technical element of the action mode are the 'real' miss while you still get a 'partial things not going to plan' miss via the rng.

The 'partial fail' could be designed one of two ways:

It could be some portion of lower time limit. This means that you still have to react to the situation and possibly need to switch your next move on fail to be more optimal for damage or rotation. From the defenders side this is the more 'generous' and less technical option. It's simpler to do and balance on a technical level but might represent solvable design challenge to make it clear to both players whether or not you are experiencing a miss or hit.

Or it could be some form of softer CC (e.g. the stun is now just a root or ability lock out or something that still feels consistent with the thematic to the move/class.) Now you as an attacker can 'plan' around having two 'strategies' ready one less optimal than the other depending on what abilities you have available and what your current advantage in the fight is. The defender otoh now has the opportunity to have their soft cc defenses come into play in a part of the fight that wouldn't otherwise happen. This makes the fight more dynamic and unpredictable since cc defenses are more linked to gear and can be switched up from fight to fight. But obviously requires a lot more balance considerations. But you also have less trouble with the animation problem that comes up in the other possible solution. (I am definitely strongly biased in preferring this approach. But they are probably both equally valid.)

You also get the 'build' trade off of 'guaranteed cc time down but smaller than a 'miss' vs 'increasing miss chance' as possible route for designing gear.

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.

No. The 'miss entirely' would only apply to 'physically missing the action mode attack' (the aforementioned compromise. The rng miss reffers to the 'partial fail'. The amount of variance in the 'partial fail' doesn't technically matter as long as both players have the same amount of information as to what roll resulted. It is just generally easier to only have three different categories (ie physical miss, rng partial miss, and rng success.)

If the game goes tab only the 'true' miss would have to be part of the roll. I am just not assuming the game is going full tab.

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.

Well presumably in a skill shot scenario, if the combat doesn't suck, there are stresses that can make you miss a shot or your opponent can use their movement abilities to cause you to miss the skill shot. In the case of hard cc the 'fizzle' is the physical miss.

Ok so you miss entirely your skill goes on cooldown like every other ability that got spent.

Or you hit the physical part of the attack. Now the RNG calculator comes up. Roll a 1d1000. Apply opponent's gear resistances. 1-200 you 'fumble'. Your cc is halved or softened ala my original expansions of those options. 201-1000 the stun lands. Same rng system, but the action combat serves as the full fizzle where as the fumble still delivers on the gear stats and adaptation features you have expressed a desire for.

What do you pro-rng people think?

We have not received permission from Dygz to share the quoted post.

RNG isn't negated in the currently proposed model. Gear resistance and stats apply in the proposed model.

'If it's an Action Combat Stun... The big part of what determines whether the Stun "fumbles" instead of hits...with regard to RNG... are the stats.'

The nuance you might be missing is that a physical miss is a full miss. The player's skill is tested. The fumble is an RNG partial miss. The character executed the move imperfectly. A success is where both you and your character succeeded. You are rewarded with the abilities full effect.

Whether or not this model fits Intrepid's model is not yet known. Your beaten dead horse of a Jeffery Bard quote does not specify how the rng applies to the action combat hit. This is a proposal to meet in the middle. So I am asking your /opinion/ on a possible implementation.

It sounds a lot like 'no I don't like this model because I am an rng purest.'

Mk so both you and CROW3 have effectively gone 'no I want stun to have a binary fail option np matter what' despite the fact that player skill already provides that.

@JamesSunderland is the only other person I technically am waiting on an opinion irt it. But I expect a similar response as CROW3's