Aggro/Threat mechanics don't work in PvX

NiKr wrote: »

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

That video is cool and all, but I'm trying to see the effect from the pov of the victim

Actually yeah that might be easier @Mag7spy , can you find a SMITE video from the perspective of someone being taunted/Forced Targeted for NiKr?

I don't wanna get caught up in the specifics of Countess' forced target so let's just use the one you know. Nothing worse than arguing with someone about experiences they don't even have.

All YT videos are fucking "ohhh, so you want to main this character?! well here's how to do it!" and not a single damn one about how to beat the shit out of that character

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

As usual this isn't exactly correct, so for anyone suffering through reading this thread, please understand that Mag doesn't actually play this game.

It acts like a Stun under certain specific flow conditions but is not actually a Stun if you have any preparation for it. Not going into a long explanation of that, better to wait for Mag to show us examples he has actual experience with.

NiKr wrote: »

All YT videos are fucking "ohhh, so you want to main this character?! well here's how to do it!" and not a single damn one about how to beat the shit out of that character

Which is unfortunately precisely why someone who lacks experience would conclude that the Suppression is more important than the Forced Target here.

There are lots of stun skills in this game. Why 'bother' adding a Forced Facing to one that is supposedly 'mainly a stun' unnecessarily?

Anyways, if it ever becomes actually relevant I'll go into it.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

There's no way to finish it.

You literally can't comprehend it enough and you haven't played the game, you just jumped to a conclusion.

You're just not listening to what I'm saying and even when I try to drop the thing you want to continue?

Can you think of a reason why they would bother adding the Forced Facing if the move already stuns?

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

You didn't even ask this question.

But fine.

Countess' Ult will Force Target you even if you cleanse or resist the Stun or Root.

The Forced Facing is a separate and intentional effect.

EDIT: I should clarify properly, this ability is 'Suppress' not Stun or Root, which acts differently under certain specific conditions, if this is somehow important to conclude this...

Actually NiKr you probably have enough information now for if you even care.

Furthermore, and this is the reason I'm done with this conversation even if unfairly.

Mag says 'I've played the game even unlocked a few characters'.

I'm talking about Predecessor not Paragon.

You don't unlock characters in Predecessor.

It's probably 'just' a case of Mag misremembering something. Yeah. That's the most likely.

Azherae wrote: »

Actually NiKr you probably have enough information now for if you even care.

I honestly could not give fewer fucks about info or details. I literally just wanna see how a single damn game applied the taunt effect in an action combat game. I want to see it from the victim's pov. I just want to see the practical application. All this arguing about stupid stuff does nothing.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Yes.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Actually NiKr you probably have enough information now for if you even care.

I honestly could not give fewer fucks about info or details. I literally just wanna see how a single damn game applied the taunt effect in an action combat game. I want to see it from the victim's pov. I just want to see the practical application. All this arguing about stupid stuff does nothing.

Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I still haven't figured out how to engage with Mag and I'm sure it will be better served if I just don't do that at all. I hope Mag finds the information you want whenever he's done with whatever 'reaction' or 'proof' he comes up with that my experiences are incorrect.

Azherae wrote: »

Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I still haven't figured out how to engage with Mag and I'm sure it will be better served if I just don't do that at all. I hope Mag finds the information you want whenever he's done with whatever 'reaction' or 'proof' he comes up with that my experiences are incorrect.

I found a stream of a game against serqet. Gonna go through it and hope to the whole pantheon of those smite gods that Serqet does her taunt against the streamer, cause god knows Mag ain't providing that.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Nah I'm good. I'm pretty sure NiKr believes me, the only other people in the thread have been HIT by this Ult at some point and know how it works.

I guess you just never reacted to it in time to experience what I refer to since you didn't play Paragon (I assume Paragon) that much. Have a good one.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

I don't care how skill or unskill based it is. If the taunt literally moves the players reticle towards the taunter - that's what I want to see. That is what, it seems, you're talking about. Does Smite do that? I saw one Serqet's kiss so far and it didn't seem to move the camera. Gonna keep watching to be sure.

Ok, I saw how Serqet's taunt works. It's a direct pull of the camera and hold of it for like 1s. It disorientates you a bit because the screen moves really damn quickly, but that is the point of a taunt imo.

So now, Mag, your ideal goal would be to find any and all feedback from smite players that complain about this mechanic. If you don't want to do that and will just say (as you have been) that "imagine 20 people doing that to you" - that is not an argument. And it's not because Intrepid have probably a dozen ways of designing the mechanic of such a taunt in a way where "20 people" can't just keep pulling your camera all over the place.

Also, the move of the screen itself doesn't have to be that jarring. It could be a slight slowish slide instead of an instant snap. Though even that is arguable, because either of those serve their own purposes in a fight.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

That one is way smoother, so even less of a problem imo.

So yeah, if you manage to find feedback where people dislike this - I'll get your point much better. Right now I see literally no problem with a taunt that pulls your camera.

ALSO! Just to make sure that I'm clear here. What I'm suggesting (and I think what Noaani was suggesting) is just the movement of the camera. Your char doesn't move on its own, it's not being pulled physically or anything of the sort. Your camera just starts to move towards the tank that taunted you and it's your task to account for that in your movement/actions. Those smite players seemed to have been doing fine.

And as I've already said before, in all 12 years of me playing as (and against) a tank - I've not once seen more than 3 aggroing classes on one person. And I've participated in fights ranging in size from 9v9 to several hundred vs several hundred.

Oh, and as a side point, thank you for finding that video. I appreciate it.

NiKr wrote: »

Oh, and as a side point, thank you for finding that video. I appreciate it.

I do also honestly appreciate it, thank you for finding it.

My response also stays the same, Intrepid. That's perfectly fine with me, I don't consider it clunky or problematic. Even if multiple Tanks were taunting me, that moreso feels to me like they're wasting their ability, especially if it has a cooldown that's balanced around it.

I would request that this generally doesn't affect a person's camera facing more than once every 5 seconds even if there are many tanks timing it. Subject to testing, I'd be okay with this experience, but you should factor for 'higher than that' maybe since I have quite good reactions/spatial awareness.

I'll try to get some data from a 'slower' team member.

Azherae wrote: »

I would request that this generally doesn't affect a person's camera facing more than once every 5 seconds even if there are many tanks timing it. Subject to testing, I'd be okay with this experience, but you should factor for 'higher than that' maybe since I have quite good reactions/spatial awareness.

I'd personally go for smth like a 10s debuff that pans the camera slowly towards the tank every 5 secs (so 3 times overall) and if the taunt is recast by someone else, the direction of the pan just shifts toward that new caster but w/o the on-cast effect.

This way each tank would have to pay a ton of attention to their target, if they wanted to chain-taunt it. And that seems like a perfect way to absolutely waste a ton of super valuable tank time. And if they don't try to perfectly space out their taunts, then they're either overlapping and wasting their CDs or their taunts are spread out more than 5s apart, at which point the effect is at a steady rate that a player can adjust to.

Ideally, this effect would also depend on a stat that has a counter-stat that reduces the speed of the pan (maybe even to 0). Could be a resistance buff as well, though I'd prefer just a stat relation, cause imo that would make the builds deeper and more interesting.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Nope. It's for the exact reason of Intrepid having more design freedom in how they approach this mechanic, that I believe it would not be jarring or annoying. And it would let them balance it in a better way than a direct copy from smite/predecessor would lead to.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

The pan would be no longer than 2s, it would be slow and, yes, it would repeat 3 times over the duration of the buff. This is how I see a pvp taunt working where you'd have to, at the very least, pay attention to the tank and his positioning instead of your preferred target. And it would be on the tank to spin you around from other targets.

And if you notice that you're the main target of taunts - you'd be able to build against them. This wasn't a thing in L2 afaik.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

It would be a point to extrapolate on. If there's people complaining about it in smite, there'll definitely be people complaining about it in Ashes. If there's only a tiny minority of complainers in Smite, Ashes would probably have a somewhat decent number (purely because I don't think this has been done in an mmo before).

Also, once again, classes don't matter and don't count, because they do not represent separate skillsets. It would just be "there's a tank", and that's it. And unless Intrepid truly succeed with their "1 of each" design, I'm not even sure how many parties will have tanks in their setups.

But even if Intrepid do succeed, that's still only 1 tank per party. So even in a huge 500v500, that's only 60 tanks for FIVE HUNDRED TARGETS OF ENEMIES. The mass literally doesn't add up to "omg there's 20 damn tanks on me who can all perfectly stagger their taunts in such a way that I'm constantly taunted".

Even 3 tanks on one target would mean that 3 whole-fucking-parties'-worth of tanks are controlling A SINGLE TARGET. All while literally anyone else on the field can attack those tanks' parties with them being defenseless.

I haven't played BDO nearly enough to know if they have any kind of party play or coordination, but I definitely feel like you think that you'd be the center of attention on a field of hundreds, instead of each of those people having their own target. In a party-based game, the party IS the target, so any incoming damage or CC or whatever else is spread across all 8 members, even if it's directed towards only a single character.

You do not exist in a vacuum.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

And imo that is the whole point of a taunt. It should be distracting, annoying and unpleasant. And your goal would then be to remove it instead of putting up with it.

Also, L2's aggro had a cd of 3 seconds on its effect. That's a tab effect. I adjusted that to a more actiony gameplay. Also also, if you see that you're being targeted by a tank - literally all you'd need to do is go into tab mode. Now your camera is not panning. You're still taunted, but at least you're not being disoriented. The beauty of hybrid combat system