Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

hexen

Testers
  • Content Count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About hexen

  • Rank
    Magpie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

546 profile views
  1. You are using a bad example that is making people disagree with you about a point that they might actually agree with in principle. You're essentially saying that you want more characters designed to be played by careful skill use and planning, as opposed to mechanics-heavy twitch gameplay. A control-oriented character isn't a bad way to do that, but DAOC style mezzing is a sledgehammer application of a control character, an unsubtle mess of design. You're looking at a very early iteration of MMO pvp, basically "virtual world" stuff, where there was no specific audience in mind, and no true vision for what combat was supposed to look like. DAOC Mezzers are a cautionary tale, not a thing to emulate. They show what happens when you put too much hard CC in a game. It becomes the tail that wags the dog, a substitute for every other tactic. Your point about counter-cc and resistances and stuff as a balancing component isn't realistic. Just look at the lengths WoW has had to go to in order to salvage something resembling competitive pvp out of a pve game stuffed to the gills with cc. We're talking about elaborate internal cooldowns on single cc resistances, elaborate cc chains, giant band-aid cd's that make most of the actual combat irrelevant. It barely works even on a 3v3 scale. They threw a billion dollars at it, and it's still the butt of every MMO pvp joke. That said, there are other ways to do this. There are examples of control classes that have a more subtle application of control that doesn't crush the rest of the game in the process. Guild Wars 1 mesmers play an elaborate game of situational debuffs, control, enchantments, debuff stripping, cover enchants to counter enemy stripping, etc. Vanilla WoW Warlocks had an interesting active-control mechanic where you could chain a sequence of breakable and unbreakable CC on a single target through continuous casting that created little windows where they could be damaged, but gave the target constant opportunities to counterplay or break out. Aion sorcerers had powerful breakable AoE CC, but it required extensive knowledge of enemy magic resistance to make any use out of it. Healers could group strip it instantly and were practically immune to it, so it was a high risk opener or very high risk surprise, nothing else. So to TLDR it, if you want a control character, do not ask for AoE Mezzes and stuns. That's just asking for a win button.
  2. Are you sure that's what they're referring to? If so, you're right, that has nothing to do with leading targets.
  3. This is a risky move. Knights don't just wear plate and all that for RP/Art reasons. They do it because it lets you customize armor for a class's role. I wouldn't outright say this new direction is a mistake because there are a lot of ways you can design armor (functionally, not aesthetically). The one discussed was giving armor different types of mitigation. All the DF vets around here know full well that this approach leads to everyone wearing the same armor set, usually hybridized tank armor. ESO tried to do armor choice with stat bonuses. It didn't work because MMO's are big and complicated. Anything you could get from that armor choice, you could get through the right jewelry/enchantment/consumable/rare drop combination. As a result, everyone chose armor types based on unique set bonuses, and completely ignored the type of armor they were wearing unless it incidentally augmented the set bonuses. That Battlefall game lets you choose whatever armor you want, but it does so through flat bonuses to the intended damage type (Plate was damage bonus to melee, Leather to ranged, etc). This gives the illusion of choice, but is basically akin to a fixed set of armor for each class. In any event, the key part here is "To be clear, we haven’t figured out all the trade-offs yet. We will. The important thing to remember is that we like to give players a choice, and we like decisions to have consequences." I'll reserve judgment until we know what approach is taken, but it's really hard to do this right because the min/max potential opened up works against the concept of variety and individual choice. If you cater mechanics to min/maxing, the intended choices you want players to make are typically replaced by an arms race. It's true that traditionally if you have 15 classes, you end up seeing people wear the same 15-20 armor sets. Unfortunately, if you unlock the armor system, you usually end up seeing between 1-5 armor classes, mostly 1. Even if it all works out, you're still likely to end up with one best armor set per class.
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE
  5. I like low TTK and I do think it's the most exciting way to counter zergs. The problem is most MMO's aren't really set up for low TTK. If your game makes it easy to get into melee (every themepark game), it's not set up for low TTK. If "ranged" combat is like, 20-60 feet tops, or mostly undodgeable projectiles (again, every themepark game), low TTK doesn't work. If you have a poorly made sockston of CC (Archeage), low TTK works for the zerg because any idiot can hit a stunned target. It works in games like AC where it's easy to dodge, or AC2 where ranged combat is long and multi-tiered. There's also scale to consider, which is why I'm okay with long TTK in CF. DF is a good example of a game where the long TTK works great for large scale combat, but for small scale it's pitifully bad. There's also looting to consider. In a game with full or even partial loot, low TTK doesn't work all that well simply because crafting gear and running for 15 minutes only to die in 1 second doesn't really qualify as a game.
  6. hexen

    Other Rodent Types?

    I voted no, but in exchange I'll politely pretend that you're not furries.
  7. It's okay. The mechanics are rough and buggy. The scale is tiny and performance is horrible. There's no real permanence since siege weapons can hit the whole map and blow up an entire base in a few shots. Servers wipe constantly since hackers come in and mess the whole game up. I'm not crazy about it, but if you like survival lobby games it's not bad.
  8. Yeah this is tricky. Here's the common ways this is done, and none of them are perfect. 1.Free for all. Common in DAOC clones and any game where the faction defends instead of the guild, because the show must go on. The good part of this is it's spontaneous, constant action and vigilance. The bad part is it's meaningless, you won't hold anything overnight unless your alliance is half Singaporeans, Australians, and NEET's, unless its summer, in which case you add kids into that. 2. Lead time. The Darkfall system. You declare a siege, it goes live 22 or 24 or whatever hours after it's declared. The good part of this is you can get a real fight out of it. The bad part is 22 hours after 5am on a Monday is 3am on a Tuesday, meaning the side with the most college Humanities majors and kids during the summer wins. Darkfall eventually patched this so you could buy a certain amount of safe time per day, and automatic safe time after a siege concludes. It works-ish? 3. Siege windows. Albion uses this, among other games. Basically every holding has a preset time(s) per day that it can be vulnerable. Usually there's some notice like the Lead Time system. The good part is it's predictable. The bad part is any way you design these windows is going to favor one side or another, and it lets people log on like a few hours a week and still hold important territory, bogging the game down for people who do play. 4. Defender sets the siege timer. Like the Lead Time system, except when the attacker declares the siege, they declare it for a window of time, and the defender sets the time it actually goes vulnerable. I haven't played Shadowbane since like 2003 but I recall them using this one. The good is you get the best possible fight for every holding. The bad is it makes it very hard for the attacker, which is cool when holdings are supposed to rarely change hands, but very bad if it's part of a campaign. Personally I think this is the best of the four if players are building their own holdings.
  9. Totally different topic, but I'm a huge friendly fire enthusiast, and I agree with you. It's the most ballsy thing ever for them to put friendly fire in, and I respect them immensely for it.
  10. I hate CC, but it's a broad term, and what you call soft CC I don't consider CC at all, it's just offensive utility skills and I call them by what they are. I'm all for utility skills that give more options in combat, but abilities that even moderately take control of the character away don't belong in pvp at all. An off the top of my head list of acceptable CC is knockbacks, interrupts, short silences (basically an interrupt), snares, pulls that you have to aim, roots that break on damage for like, one class, and maybe a 1 or 2 second stun for like one class. Note the liberal use of the word short, because CC done well in a game should be something situational, to mess up what your opponent is doing. Hard CC is a PvE mechanic that has no place in PvP, and the only reason this is even a debate (as usual) is because people have faulty expectations from themepark games. Not going to labor on this too long, but WoW got away with a sloppy compromise by patching in universal cc breaks when they released their PvP ladder system because they had no idea what they were doing, and now their 11th hour compromise has become the industry standard. To be fair, it was a good compromise for their game a decade ago, but there is absolutely no reason why anyone should be replicating their clumsy "lol u get to counter X skill X times" system. And just because somebody brought up stunlocking and skill ceiling, I could make an autohotkey or Synapse macro that could stunlock you, and it would take me about 15 seconds to do it. I'm all for these alternative CC's provided they follow my rule of thumb, that they are short, situational, utility skills. When you theorize about these though, keep two things in mind. 1. If 1 guy can do it, 10 guys can do it. For example, blinds worked great in DF (conceptually I mean, they were unreliable and failed half the time), but the era where everyone was using blinds also had a population so small I could write everyone's name on a notecard. Scale that up to a game with a healthy population and it might not have worked. 2. CC is a force multiplier, especially if the game has a short time to kill. If your TTK is really short, even a 1 or 2 second stun will turn large scale combat into the stun/kill stupidity you see in these themepark games. (This also applies to AoE's, but that's a topic for another day).
  11. Oh look, a 20 page thread about oh-so-topical first world problems. The drawback of digital media is you don't get the visceral sensation of throwing it in the trash when it belongs there.
  12. Yeah, the thing where 100 red boxes are popping in and out of existence in a small area once per second. Don't do that thing.
  13. Too many of you omnipotent chessmasters here have never heard the phrase "Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians."
  14. Regarding the binary existence or nonexistence of potions and alchemy, I don't care. Unlike you, I'm not arguing the objective value of a mechanic I personally like or dislike based on subjective reasons. I have a problem with consumables (you restrict this to alchemy and pots for some reason) when getting them becomes a process/grind/RMT, and guess what, it usually is, unless consumables are not very effective, or don't stack. To be fair, this is really just a sub-argument for the more vs less downtime between fun, and the reason consumables (and by incidental extension your coveted potions and alchemy) are on the firing range for this one is because they have historically been HUGE offenders for the grind/RMT problem in MMO's. You think it's an exaggeration, it's not.
×
×
  • Create New...