Crowd control should not be based on RNG

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

Ah we are back to 'my definitions are the only correct ones.' Ok mate.

'MMO's attempt to offer a completely different experience to what fighting games offer.'

This may have been true back in tab target pve centric days but not in action combat PvP centric days. Now it is more about 'I want decision making to be the most important thing but want some form of engaging combat and a gear system so I will play an mmo over a fighting game and an action mmo over a tab target one.' It's a spectrum, something you have proven in many threads to have difficulty understanding.

First of all you really seem to not understand the argument at all. Do you think ashes should be tab target?

If not, and action combat is desirable, should we not be looking to lessons about combat from games that perfected it? Action combat has base principles gear or not.

Side bar I really doubt you have touched the Soul character creator given your comments.

Secondly 'the build matters more than the kit in an mmo' while not wrong is 'correctly wrong' relative to fighting games. Just because you don't know how to unlock the 'crazy pressure character' vs the 'tricky zoner character' in the same character doesn't mean it isn't possible. Mmo's just take the easy to understand for casuals method by giving abilities labels. That doesn't mean the two require completely different base knowledge sets to understand how good action combat works.

So back to why this actually comes up:

'The genere that pushes action combat the most decided randomness takes away from agency.'

'Characters in those games with random mechanics are built with positive agency not negative agency'

'We therefore think CC is better off not being random in action combat because it takes away agency in a system unsuited to it.'

Lastly, GW2 has been consistently cited as 'a game where there is no miss chance for cc' and quie frankly your argument just like the Absolver thing resulted in you going 'its shit and didn't count'.

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

Oh please. More information isn't going to lower the amount of times I roll ones. You want builds to actually matter, scrap rng entirely and give us direct shortened time. RNG in cc is dumb because it makes the game less dynamic, it's a binary thing.

You want builds to matter, and go 'if you didn't want it to happen this way you would have built better'. No mate I rolled three ones in a row. The game took away my agency because 'you want adaptibility.' There are plenty of better ways to build adaptability. But taking away player agency is not an acceptable one. My gear doesn't matter if I roll bad and that's just facts.

No one wants to regret taking hard cc chance down instead of extra defense. 'This gear is trash' 'you took the wrong gear'. But if it 'worked' its the correct option suddenly. That's a sign of bad game design.

Leave rng to crits. At least thats a positive experience.

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

It is one dimensional because it is binary. If you are arguing for a 'tiered' system of miss hit crit. That's a separate concept. You know why? Because missing in itself is binary. I don't care if 'the effect is lower this percent of time'. Missing out due to RNG is taking away agency when it didn't need to be. I brought up that gear paradigm because thats what tends to get built in systems that focus on RNG. Because it is inherently difficult to balance. Because it is by nature random and rng forces having to build around extremes rather than fine tuneable variables. Something that means a very different thing once hard cc or even soft cc gets involved. Because now its the difference between who gets a turn or who gets to root who.

'If you had better gear than your opponent but rolled a one you would still hit'.That's also a false paradigm. If you have better gear than someone it isn't an equal fight to begin with. Obviously you are going to be advantaged.

Also 'if you had better gear than your opponent but rolled a one you would still hit'. Oh so you ARE in favor of 100% hit so long as 'you earned it.' Great except that's bad game design because now whatever gear lets you hit 100% is now 'the meta'.

But let me guess you actually meant 'I want equal fights to have randomness but I want unequal ones to have less.' Ok but seriously why? I can't think of any good reasons for that. Gear buffs already seperate the combat experience, but if there wasn't rng and just 'flat time resist' you'd have a larger pool of 'fights in pvp that have some decisions and strategy' that matter.

If I can miss an ability usage due to RNG rather than my strategic awareness being flawed, my decision to use it stops mattering. The game can be better than that.

But again I am talking just cc here, the part of the game you repeatedly say 'makes for interesting combat that goes outside boring rotations.' You are specifically advocating 'lets have less ability to plan' on a part of the game that heavily effects strategy 'because I want to parts of the game that force me to adapt'. Why THIS area for the rng? There are plenty of other places to have adaptation like spacing, opponent ability useage, surrounding mobs, crit chance....

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

You were in a position to get hit either way.

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

It's easy to think someone isn't following the conversation when you aren't listening to what they have to say.

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

But sure let's correct your misunderstanding. I brought up that example (thought you were talking about something else due to your unclear wording,) is because 'in a situation where you die to stun because you geared against stun and you 'fail' the save and die from the combo, you are generally going to have two 'visible' things to emotionally react to. 'The gear didn't do its 'job'.' (This is a psychological bias, but good video games build around those not ignore them.) 'If I had more defense I would have lasted longer.' I'm talking about 'emotional responses.' Your response to that is the gear equivalent of 'git gud' mine is 'ok this situation isn't a necessary experience let's build in a way that lowers the quantity of those situations.'

Do you want yo keep condecending me about how wrong I am or do you want to have an actual debate and answer my earnest questions to you that you ignore entirely

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

'I made it up.' I got this impression from numerous things you have said in numerous threads. Getting exact quotes would take a lot of time so ok. 'I made it up.' Rather than misunderstood you... You don't perceive cc to be part of the strategic part of the game and the part that keeps things from getting stale....?