Crowd control should not be based on RNG
We have not received permission from Noaani to share this post.
We have not received permission from beaushinkle to share this post.
We have not received permission from Noaani to share this post.
We have not received permission from beaushinkle to share this post.
We have not received permission from Noaani to share this post.
We have not received permission from bigepeen to share this post.
We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share this post.
We have not received permission from bigepeen to share this post.
We have not received permission from beaushinkle to share this post.
We have not received permission from Songcaller to share this post.
We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share this post.
We have not received permission from beaushinkle to share this post.
We have not received permission from bigepeen to share this post.
We have not received permission from Dygz to share this post.
We have not received permission from Dygz to share this post.
We have not received permission from beaushinkle to share this post.
We have not received permission from CROW3 to share this post.
We have not received permission from beaushinkle to share this post.
We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share the quoted post.
I'm still technically waiting on your opinion irt a proposed 'meet in the middle' btw. It got buried in the meanwhile so I'll just repaste it here.
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 JamesSunderland to share this post.
We have not received permission from Magic Man to share this post.
We have not received permission from Dygz to share this post.
We have not received permission from Dygz to share this post.
We have not received permission from Noaani to share this post.
We have not received permission from beaushinkle to share this post.
We have not received permission from Noaani to share this post.
We have not received permission from Dygz to share this post.
We have not received permission from beaushinkle to share this post.
We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share the quoted post.
Static vs range is a question of complexity and how much you want to tune things. They are both valid, but the range would shift a lot more people towards using a build guide because the more things seem less straightforward the more less confident or intelligent people are going to feel like doing the work themselves. On the flip side it'd let you allow for more chaos and unpredictability.
As for your point about softening it sounds more abstract and less sensible when you don't have a more concrete and thematic example to work with. E.g. A thunderspark based stun could easily soften to a paralysis and feel natural. A large swinging overhead that knocks you into the ground literally planting you into it can naturally soften into a root if animated a certain way. A heavy blow to the head causing your skull to rattle is a little more abstract to convert to silence or ability lock but not /that/ farfetched. A knockdown could easily shift into a tumbling knockback (I don't really consider knockbacks hard cc as you have control over your characters abilities and direction usually otherwise its a stun by another name.) Sleep is already a pretty soft hard cc so shortening it directly is the only necessary thing there. I guess a knockback or sleep could soften into blind if the move involves sand in your face. It's really dependent on thematics and animation, but the concepts could be pretty easily steered that way if they designed moves with it in mind.
To your tooltip point.... Yeah? That's pretty normal in MMOs isn't it? You would need to include the softening concept in some form of tutorial though yes.
We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share this post.