@Lerad: Unfortunately anything that's that strong in solo is going to be even stronger in groups and if I'm recalling correctly there wasn't anything in the original report to gate against that (and my attempts to gate it by respecting who afflicted who were rejected as well).
Ah, you're right, now that I'm back and have had the chance to check. Group combat wasn't even considered in the original design concept, to the point where it was pretty much completely overlooked. I was remembering wrongly about how much the original concept had attempted to limit its usage in groups.
Strong and potent 1v1 mechanics exist that are limited (to various extents) in groups, but it's definitely a challenge to make something that's fun and has application in both. As a core mechanic of the MDs, I think it might be worth thinking about making it completely non-applicable in groups, but that does make the class become a lot more one-dimensional. Well, what I think might be a good idea is not always a good idea, but it's at least something to consider - to give up a little bit of fun and versatility here for a bit of reliability there, or vice versa, etc.
Ah, you're right, now that I'm back and have had the chance to check. Group combat wasn't even considered in the original design concept, to the point where it was pretty much completely overlooked. I was remembering wrongly about how much the original concept had attempted to limit its usage in groups.
Strong and potent 1v1 mechanics exist that are limited (to various extents) in groups, but it's definitely a challenge to make something that's fun and has application in both. As a core mechanic of the MDs, I think it might be worth thinking about making it completely non-applicable in groups, but that does make the class become a lot more one-dimensional. Well, what I think might be a good idea is not always a good idea, but it's at least something to consider - to give up a little bit of fun and versatility here for a bit of reliability there, or vice versa, etc.
A longer build up time would fix most of your issues with it. Instead of a massive burst being able to be done in the first 3 seconds. Delay the ticks further apart and extend its length. It'd be a good band aid solution to its power in groups to give time to build up a properly planned skill route for moondancers.
A longer build up time would fix most of your issues with it. Instead of a massive burst being able to be done in the first 3 seconds. Delay the ticks further apart and extend its length. It'd be a good band aid solution to its power in groups to give time to build up a properly planned skill route for moondancers.
Can you please stop pushing bandaids like this before the adjustment arrives?
What you propose would completely kill the ability to solo for moondancers, MDs already fail at getting people to toadrange if their target has a high enough manapool in the current "OP" form. Because it sits at the minmax realms of get a kill/nothing. It doesn't build up like shadowtwists at all.
edited to elaborate why it'd kill 1v1 of MDs: It's worth noting what's targeted for months now is Succumb and Succumb alone, but what really causes the burst is the min-max'd Hexes+Succumb synergy. So when you elongate the time you also displace the hexes output and succumb ticks, which would cause the 1v1 use of that synergy to fail obviously. As healing+succumb and other combinations are already irrelevant, I won't even bother typing.
Three seconds to half mana argument? Well I guess it can... With enough external affs or a haegl to help out, but only then. And even then group combat is a whole different story. It does take that long for a lot of people to die to damage as well. As damage is still the meta and if manascaling synergies weren't preferred in recent Ascension, we won't see them abused any time soon either.
However, If the speed of succumb is that much of a concern, my counter proposal would be... I forgot how many ticks it does, should be between 3-5? You can multiply the first tick with 0.75 mana drain which scales to 1.25 till the last tick, this is just an approach which wouldn't probably break MDs' viability but it'd also help the target survive further at the very beginning.
"Oh the year was 453CE, how I wish I was in Serenwilde now... aletter of marque come from the regent to the scummiest aethership I ever seen, gods damn them all...I was told we'd cruise the void for auronidion and dust, we'd fire no turrets, shed no tears.. now I'm a broken man on a Hallifax tier, the last of Saz's privateers."
Not sure it is viable to compare the rest of the year's combat to the ascension event. I know that I was not the only one so lagged out that the only way to do much was to take your hands off the keyboard and hope passives did something productive.
The recent crate issues (and really everything that is currently out of balance) proves that if you can "win" by abusing something, it's going to be abused. Let's not complain about people being concerned over the time/effort it takes to make a change like this (and offering a relatively simple temporary fix) and be productive.
I don't think it's a terrible idea to spread out the timing, though maybe the ticks could speed up as time passes? That would give the defender some time to work on a counter/hinder and force some strategy to build up to the kill condition.
If you click on the recently added spoiler button, you might see why I think it is a terrible idea.
Let's not complain about people being concerned over the time/effort it takes to make a change like this (and offering a relativelysimple temporary fix) and be productive.
Haha, sure. Fyi, I did offer a temporary fix of my own in the post above.
But I guess, I will just not bother getting involved in a Succumb discussion ever again. Envoys got this.
"Oh the year was 453CE, how I wish I was in Serenwilde now... aletter of marque come from the regent to the scummiest aethership I ever seen, gods damn them all...I was told we'd cruise the void for auronidion and dust, we'd fire no turrets, shed no tears.. now I'm a broken man on a Hallifax tier, the last of Saz's privateers."
You're welcome to add to the discussion and I can't disagree with your reasoning of why you think it would be bad without seeing it in practice.
A major change to the mechanics is way down the road so I personally don't see a problem with offering a solution that may help mitigate repeatedly stated concerns in a format that can be done relatively quickly.
I also didn't have an issue with your possible solution either, merely the way you responded to Veyils'. I do refuse to feel bad if you choose to storm off rather than respond in a reasonable way.
1. Observe a specific skill has an issue 2. Post logs to highlight issue 3. Forward concerns to your envoy 4. Your envoy will assess the validity of your concerns 5. Your envoy will present the case if they believe it has merit
(6. A skill which is already being worked on and has a compromise/solution in the works generally needs to be seen in practice before you lament its actual potency.)
(I'm the mom of Hallifax btw, so if you are in Hallifax please call me mom.)
== Professional Girl Gamer == Yes I play games Yes I'm a girl get over it
There seem to be a lot of envoys on this thread for your S.O.P. to be the way it works. There are some situations in which a discussion board just works better to discuss the problem and get input from everyone. I think it can reduce wasted time for some envoys by watching the reactions and advice of the community.
You could, you know, wait for the existing changes to go through or for the special report in the works to find resolution or if you're going to push solutions, ones which actually don't neuter the skillset's potential to kill under the guise of being helpful.
Edit: Also, unless I've misunderstood, this thread isn't to dispute the balance of the game. I'm pretty sure it's just meant to be a forums wrapper for the most recent push and to rave therefor.
(I'm the mom of Hallifax btw, so if you are in Hallifax please call me mom.)
== Professional Girl Gamer == Yes I play games Yes I'm a girl get over it
It really isn't your response anyways or Veyils's idea that makes me sour, it's the cumulative result of repeating same things over and over in the past few months.
F.e, box below, this is definitely not the first time this is brought up.
That would give the defender some time to work on a counter/hinder and force some strategy to build up to the kill condition.
You'll never see me disagree with the highnumbers Succumb can bring which I adamantly believe to be the core of this problem, but Succumb+Toad generally happens in 7-12 seconds depending on MDs' investments. With 6-7 seconds being the base minimum because of the powercap for the solo Lucidian+ and some latency. And, there are a lot of counters one can do during a window of that length...
Shielding up, fleeing a room away (Which actually cures the succumbaff in the process), getting allygusted, gusting the MD, getting allyshielded, pacifism?, shieldstunning the MD, serpent? etc. All these options take a single balance as well. There probably are a lot of other options to mitigate the damage. But if you dive head first and compete with a MD to find out whose burst is better instead, then good luck. (At least until the nerf, but even after the nerf if MD will still be able to solo, they'll be fast. Why? Because Hexes can be subpar with everything else, but their output definitely is fast. Might be the fastest burst in the game, afaik.)
The players who have been using Succumb have said it's broken on the first day they had access to the new form, and I echoed them this far.
But I also helped them to minmax the current strat with their aff order, so I do know a thing or two about what they do. But I'm (personally, very personally) sick of seeing it as the bane of PvP, if its scaling/synergy in groups is a problem then that's a common problem with many other methods, which isn't rooted at Succumb.
If the problem is their drain per tick (Which again, I believe it's to be), since we can't track external affs... Unfortunately... Adding diminishing returns to manadrain after "4-5 ?" affs on the target might limit both the external affs' weight and limit the initial over-reaching succumb does after the overloaded affs. It'd also step away from making the method useless as it'll only cut off the upper edge of the output as well.
"Oh the year was 453CE, how I wish I was in Serenwilde now... aletter of marque come from the regent to the scummiest aethership I ever seen, gods damn them all...I was told we'd cruise the void for auronidion and dust, we'd fire no turrets, shed no tears.. now I'm a broken man on a Hallifax tier, the last of Saz's privateers."
I don't believe I was "pushing" anything or even "lamenting" imbalance. If that's the tone that has come across it is unintentional. My intent was to offer ideas and support the freedom to do so in a reasonable manner.
If you don't like the ideas being presented, you don't have to respond. You could tumble out of the thread or maybe shield until an opportunity arises to add something solid. If the arguments are too strong, feel free to serpent until you get a chance to offer a reasonable rebuttal.
That said, I appreciate the input from you @saz. I think the general feel right now is that people are nervous over report 1583 because solution 1 wasn't possible? So, yes there will be a few months of trepidation while we wait to see what comes of it. Particularly since, if the "nerf" doesn't actually solve the issue, you don't have to face it, we do.
Did a bit of testing, the numbers released in the report are different to the ones in game.
So testing with a moondancer with a target who has 11800 mana:
Current succumb
succumb does right now:
one afflction:
tick of -1576m, 13.4%
two afflictions
tick of -2402m, 20.4%
three aflictions
tick of -3228m, 27.4%
Four afflictions
tick of -6414m, 54.4%
So current succumb hit will make you toadable on cast with four afflictions on with no need for the first tick to happen. Three afflictions will cause the cast and the tick to drop you to toadable range assuming no other healing or mana drain. Not bringing into account the on demand 500 mana drain cast just looking at old vs new numbers atm.
New proposed numbers would change it to:(assuming the on hit drain remains the same as report 1583 does not say about changing anything in that way.)
one afflction:
tick of -1576m, 13.4%
two afflictions
tick of -2402m, 20.36%
three aflictions
tick of -
Four afflictions
tick of -4054, 34.36%
The big part of the report to remove the support element of the mana drain is not going through. So you'd assume that the numbers would be adjusted fairly significantly to compensate for that shift. As these numbers proposed are based on the removal of the 500 mana drain from non caster parties and the tick calculation based on third party support.
As a note, this is the envoy report about paralysis, decided upon after Ianir discussed with the envoys about how best to implement it. I suppose they decided it needed to be expedited first, instead of waiting until after factions etc... which is a good idea.
This was actually an envoy report as Lerad said. We solution 4ed it originally in a manner envoys pointed out would not fix the problem. Admittedly, this solution has the same issues, but that heavy reliance on a single affliction is more problematic as a balance concern than whether changing this affliction would completely disable the effectiveness of a class.
The reasoning behind this change is actually the same reasoning behind how our lock is oriented (and why we removed the truelock on double-arm-amp). The way we intended the lock to work is an affliction on each cure balance that stops another cure balance, which is somewhat hard to achieve but harrowing if it is achieved (though part of me does want to remove Green/Gedulah, but that's a different story). In this case, paralysis did a triple threat of removing parry chance, preventing all aggressive actions, and preventing movement. Preventing all aggressive actions is done by blind already and therefore we felt paralysis was only copying this functionality. Parry chance, we realise this is important for warriors and monks both. Clumsiness already did this, but in a subpar manner that made the affliction really not worth using, so we figured it would be a good time to take out two birds with one stone and buff it while removing the effect from paralysis. That basically leaves movement disabling, which while broken legs can do so, those can be bypassed fairly easily. As well, making it increase the channel on tumble-like effects (and yes, I am aware of the bug making it stop tumble-like effects right now) puts it in a fairly unique position on doing so, giving an extra window to try and stun the person to prevent the tumble channel from going through (since, as I had to confirm yesterday, stun does stop tumble, is intended to stop tumble, and is the only thing that should stop tumble.)
Also, I'd like to especially thank Shuyin and I think Ciaran for that solution in particular. Sometimes the best ideas are stolen.
(since, as I had to confirm yesterday, stun does stop tumble, is intended to stop tumble, and is the only thing that should stop tumble.)
What, since when?
Since 2009ish at the very least, chances are earlier. The main thing is stun is usually such a small window that it takes a lot of timing and latency management to actually hit it right as the tumble hits, making it unlikely that anybody ever sees this happen.
This was previously not the case. Tumble was only interruptable by being asleep when it finished. (You could sleep and wake in the middle and be fine).
It's a very significant change.
Edit: I don't think I can take any partial credit for this paralysis change. I'm actually not sure... Hrm Happy for the change anyway.
This was previously not the case. Tumble was only interruptable by being asleep when it finished. (You could sleep and wake in the middle and be fine).
It's a very significant change.
... Interestingly, that's not even in the code. For some reason, I remember that being the case. Remind me to check before relying on 8 year old memories.
(since, as I had to confirm yesterday, stun does stop tumble, is intended to stop tumble, and is the only thing that should stop tumble.)
What, since when?
Since 2009ish at the very least, chances are earlier. The main thing is stun is usually such a small window that it takes a lot of timing and latency management to actually hit it right as the tumble hits, making it unlikely that anybody ever sees this happen.
This is confusing, since sleep is similarly a small window, we know it does stop tumble, and people have successfully managed to use it. And we have not had the same experience with stun.
Comments
Gating it behind protection solves the main issue.
It removes back to back bombs from 1 person, since dissolving a group is a power cost.
Strong and potent 1v1 mechanics exist that are limited (to various extents) in groups, but it's definitely a challenge to make something that's fun and has application in both. As a core mechanic of the MDs, I think it might be worth thinking about making it completely non-applicable in groups, but that does make the class become a lot more one-dimensional. Well, what I think might be a good idea is not always a good idea, but it's at least something to consider - to give up a little bit of fun and versatility here for a bit of reliability there, or vice versa, etc.
A longer build up time would fix most of your issues with it. Instead of a massive burst being able to be done in the first 3 seconds. Delay the ticks further apart and extend its length. It'd be a good band aid solution to its power in groups to give time to build up a properly planned skill route for moondancers.
What you propose would completely kill the ability to solo for moondancers, MDs already fail at getting people to toadrange if their target has a high enough manapool in the current "OP" form. Because it sits at the minmax realms of get a kill/nothing. It doesn't build up like shadowtwists at all.
Three seconds to half mana argument? Well I guess it can... With enough external affs or a haegl to help out, but only then. And even then group combat is a whole different story. It does take that long for a lot of people to die to damage as well. As damage is still the meta and if manascaling synergies weren't preferred in recent Ascension, we won't see them abused any time soon either.
However, If the speed of succumb is that much of a concern, my counter proposal would be... I forgot how many ticks it does, should be between 3-5? You can multiply the first tick with 0.75 mana drain which scales to 1.25 till the last tick, this is just an approach which wouldn't probably break MDs' viability but it'd also help the target survive further at the very beginning.
-Kilian
The recent crate issues (and really everything that is currently out of balance) proves that if you can "win" by abusing something, it's going to be abused. Let's not complain about people being concerned over the time/effort it takes to make a change like this (and offering a relatively simple temporary fix) and be productive.
I don't think it's a terrible idea to spread out the timing, though maybe the ticks could speed up as time passes? That would give the defender some time to work on a counter/hinder and force some strategy to build up to the kill condition.
Let's not complain about people being concerned over the time/effort it takes to make a change like this (and offering a relatively simple temporary fix) and be productive.
Haha, sure. Fyi, I did offer a temporary fix of my own in the post above.
But I guess, I will just not bother getting involved in a Succumb discussion ever again. Envoys got this.
-Kilian
A major change to the mechanics is way down the road so I personally don't see a problem with offering a solution that may help mitigate repeatedly stated concerns in a format that can be done relatively quickly.
I also didn't have an issue with your possible solution either, merely the way you responded to Veyils'. I do refuse to feel bad if you choose to storm off rather than respond in a reasonable way.
2. Post logs to highlight issue
3. Forward concerns to your envoy
4. Your envoy will assess the validity of your concerns
5. Your envoy will present the case if they believe it has merit
(6. A skill which is already being worked on and has a compromise/solution in the works generally needs to be seen in practice before you lament its actual potency.)
== Professional Girl Gamer ==
Yes I play games
Yes I'm a girl
get over it
Edit: Also, unless I've misunderstood, this thread isn't to dispute the balance of the game. I'm pretty sure it's just meant to be a forums wrapper for the most recent push and to rave therefor.
== Professional Girl Gamer ==
Yes I play games
Yes I'm a girl
get over it
F.e, box below, this is definitely not the first time this is brought up.
You'll never see me disagree with the highnumbers Succumb can bring which I adamantly believe to be the core of this problem, but Succumb+Toad generally happens in 7-12 seconds depending on MDs' investments. With 6-7 seconds being the base minimum because of the powercap for the solo Lucidian+ and some latency. And, there are a lot of counters one can do during a window of that length...
Shielding up, fleeing a room away (Which actually cures the succumbaff in the process), getting allygusted, gusting the MD, getting allyshielded, pacifism?, shieldstunning the MD, serpent? etc. All these options take a single balance as well. There probably are a lot of other options to mitigate the damage. But if you dive head first and compete with a MD to find out whose burst is better instead, then good luck. (At least until the nerf, but even after the nerf if MD will still be able to solo, they'll be fast. Why? Because Hexes can be subpar with everything else, but their output definitely is fast. Might be the fastest burst in the game, afaik.)
The players who have been using Succumb have said it's broken on the first day they had access to the new form, and I echoed them this far.
But I also helped them to minmax the current strat with their aff order, so I do know a thing or two about what they do. But I'm (personally, very personally) sick of seeing it as the bane of PvP, if its scaling/synergy in groups is a problem then that's a common problem with many other methods, which isn't rooted at Succumb.
If the problem is their drain per tick (Which again, I believe it's to be), since we can't track external affs... Unfortunately... Adding diminishing returns to manadrain after "4-5 ?" affs on the target might limit both the external affs' weight and limit the initial over-reaching succumb does after the overloaded affs. It'd also step away from making the method useless as it'll only cut off the upper edge of the output as well.
-Kilian
If you don't like the ideas being presented, you don't have to respond. You could tumble out of the thread or maybe shield until an opportunity arises to add something solid. If the arguments are too strong, feel free to serpent until you get a chance to offer a reasonable rebuttal.
That said, I appreciate the input from you @saz. I think the general feel right now is that people are nervous over report 1583 because solution 1 wasn't possible? So, yes there will be a few months of trepidation while we wait to see what comes of it. Particularly since, if the "nerf" doesn't actually solve the issue, you don't have to face it, we do.
Did a bit of testing, the numbers released in the report are different to the ones in game.
So testing with a moondancer with a target who has 11800 mana:
So current succumb hit will make you toadable on cast with four afflictions on with no need for the first tick to happen. Three afflictions will cause the cast and the tick to drop you to toadable range assuming no other healing or mana drain. Not bringing into account the on demand 500 mana drain cast just looking at old vs new numbers atm.
New proposed numbers would change it to:(assuming the on hit drain remains the same as report 1583 does not say about changing anything in that way.)
The big part of the report to remove the support element of the mana drain is not going through. So you'd assume that the numbers would be adjusted fairly significantly to compensate for that shift. As these numbers proposed are based on the removal of the 500 mana drain from non caster parties and the tick calculation based on third party support.
Discord: Rey#1460
This was actually an envoy report as Lerad said. We solution 4ed it originally in a manner envoys pointed out would not fix the problem. Admittedly, this solution has the same issues, but that heavy reliance on a single affliction is more problematic as a balance concern than whether changing this affliction would completely disable the effectiveness of a class.
The reasoning behind this change is actually the same reasoning behind how our lock is oriented (and why we removed the truelock on double-arm-amp). The way we intended the lock to work is an affliction on each cure balance that stops another cure balance, which is somewhat hard to achieve but harrowing if it is achieved (though part of me does want to remove Green/Gedulah, but that's a different story). In this case, paralysis did a triple threat of removing parry chance, preventing all aggressive actions, and preventing movement. Preventing all aggressive actions is done by blind already and therefore we felt paralysis was only copying this functionality. Parry chance, we realise this is important for warriors and monks both. Clumsiness already did this, but in a subpar manner that made the affliction really not worth using, so we figured it would be a good time to take out two birds with one stone and buff it while removing the effect from paralysis. That basically leaves movement disabling, which while broken legs can do so, those can be bypassed fairly easily. As well, making it increase the channel on tumble-like effects (and yes, I am aware of the bug making it stop tumble-like effects right now) puts it in a fairly unique position on doing so, giving an extra window to try and stun the person to prevent the tumble channel from going through (since, as I had to confirm yesterday, stun does stop tumble, is intended to stop tumble, and is the only thing that should stop tumble.)
Also, I'd like to especially thank Shuyin and I think Ciaran for that solution in particular. Sometimes the best ideas are stolen.
It's a very significant change.
Edit: I don't think I can take any partial credit for this paralysis change. I'm actually not sure... Hrm
My mistake.