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

Dizzy down + Harvesting = Lame?

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, moneda said:

I don't see how Dizzy Down affects harvesters more harshly than anyone else you can catch out of combat, but it does add incentive for duelists not to just go out of combat in the midst of taking damage to re-stealth.

As far as the zoom-in for harvesting goes, it really only affects those harvesting alone, to whom I can only say, "get a group or get used to dying."

The issue is harvesters being considered out of combat while harvesting. It would be similar to finding someone killing a zombie and being able to dizzy down them. 

There needs to be an out of combat penalty (my vote is for auto critical hits when out of combat) but I just don't think a knockdown is the way to go. This game has enough CC already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, blazzen said:

The issue is harvesters being considered out of combat while harvesting. It would be similar to finding someone killing a zombie and being able to dizzy down them. 

There needs to be an out of combat penalty (my vote is for auto critical hits when out of combat) but I just don't think a knockdown is the way to go. This game has enough CC already. 

I don't personally have a problem with either of those people getting knocked down for being out of combat. My only problem with Dizzy Down is that you can't Retaliate out of it, even if you're put in that state while in combat.

Considering what a Duelist or Ranger can hit for without a crit, auto-crits on OOC targets may not have much of a different outcome than keeping DD. :lol:


Hi, I'm moneda.

s1tKI24.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, blazzen said:

Ranger can use the rapid fire arrows to instantly trigger dizzy down on an unsuspecting target from range. 

Myrmidon can net from 30m and then net pull to trigger the dizzy down and have the target dizzy downed right in front of them for easy killing. 

Shall I go on? 

I still don't think they end up killing a druid or confessor for example.  Sure, they can set up some combo and get a huge advantage, but right now, if they don't 100-0 you, they lose, because you blink away and gg.

So basically we are arguing about what is more wonderful: crazy burst damage or crazy mobility?  Sure both of those things will be issues in the "real" gathering system, but I think it will play out differently.  I could be wrong, just my view of the situation.

To sum it up my point: If people die in dizzy-down, is that a problem with dizzy-down?  Or is that a problem with excessive burst damage?  If people die in CC after a dizzy down, is that a problem with dizzy-down?  Or is that a problem with too much CC?  I don't pretend to know the answer, but I just want to point out it is more complicated from a design perspective.  Need to understand the underlying issue and correct that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, moneda said:

I don't personally have a problem with either of those people getting knocked down for being out of combat. My only problem with Dizzy Down is that you can't Retaliate out of it, even if you're put in that state while in combat.

Considering what a Duelist or Ranger can hit for without a crit, auto-crits on OOC targets may not have much of a different outcome than keeping DD. :lol:

Being able to retaliate out of Dizzy down would help a lot, I agree. You used to be able to "C" out of it but now it's so hard to charge the C. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, blazzen said:

Being able to retaliate out of Dizzy down would help a lot, I agree. You used to be able to "C" out of it but now it's so hard to charge the C. 

False

You can use C to apply your invulnerability to damage, but would still be stuck down.

 

Edited by Tinnis

caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, coolwaters said:

I don't like the dizzy down mechanic under any circumstances, but I've come to agree with the decision to restrict the field of view while harvesting. 

Why would it be good for conflict generation if every harvester could see you coming and just run away?

It wouldn't be good for PVP. It would be bad for PVP.

 

I don't like dizzy down, and would be ok with a higher damage value when out of combat, but not the knock down and dizzy that we have now.  I also don't like the restricted field of view, but I differ in that I believe there are quite a few tools coming that would negate a field of view restriction for harvesting anyways.  If (and I understand that's a big if) we get the same tracking mechanism that Shadowbane had, then I will be putting that onto any harvester I have and won't be "surprised" at anyone in the vicinity.  The field of view limiter could be taken out and there would still be viable PvP.  At least we don't have emergency summons in CF, so I don't see how increasing the field of view limits PvP; I do see how the increase to the field of view would increase the chase time before capturing/killing a harvester.

Regardless of my personal view, I do feel the current mechanic is lacking in several ways.  So far though, I haven't heard any ideas worthy as an alternative to what we currently have.

 


lUvvzPy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, narsille said:

Its almost as if there was a deliberate design choice that gathering shouldn't be viable as a solo activity...

FFS, this isn't that complicated

  • Crafters have a dependency on gatherers for raw materials
  • Gatherers have a dependency on PVPs for protection
  • PVPers have a dependency on crafters for good quality gear

Srathor, your problem since day one is that you are trying to play a game that is deliberately designed for group play as an individual.

Either wise up and join a group, quit the game, or stop trying to make fetch happen...

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose this is a matter of viewpoint.  One could also examine the situation in the following manner:

We don't need no theme-parking of the UI / viewing to hobble Harvesters.  You want that Harvester, you LEARN how to stalk targets and earn them.

"But, but, but . . they'll just run away . . ." -------->  You guys point out Harvesters should buck up for hired muscle.  Take your own advice:  Run in a group and learn Wolf Pack tactics that either herd or cut off prey.  Stop asking THE GAME be structured to prop up your inability to Stalk.

"But, but, but . . . it's more realistic if we disable their ability to look around while Harvesting . . . "  Ok, lets find some corollaries in combat and implement the same restricted viewpoint lock-down.  Say anything channeled, as a first example.

"But, but, but . . . Srathor has a problem, he keeps trying to play a game that is deliberately designed for group play . . . "------------>  Look two points up:  Take your own advice and damn RUN IN A GROUP if you are having trouble pulling down solo gatherers.  My God.  You've watched the Nature Channel at least once or twice?  You do understand the principle of Wolf Packs (and other animals, such as Killer Wales) who coordinate and HERD and cut off prey?

Stop taking this as a requirement the UI be designed to prop up p*(#y-play by "Wolves".  Think of it as an opportunity.  An opportunity to actually have to engage in astute group-play hunting tactics.

"Solo activity" should, absolutely should, be . . . possible . . . if the PLAYER is smart enough to pull it off.  To boot, a Harvester isn't rigged to defend themselves particularly well. Paired with having to negotiate an open-world PvP map riddled with Wolves.  Theoretical Wolves anyways.  Maybe Spaniels by the looks of it.

Govenors controlling the viability (prevalence) of solo-play already exist at the baseline without having to "jack" the UI viewpointing.

Understand where I'm coming from:

On the surface I agree with you.  Sure, CWs are going to be open PvP.  This means groups rule.  This is common sense.  Regardless of chosen path of play, groups are going to have the significant advantage.

But if someone chooses to ply a map solo . . . maybe the game (map size) should be calibrated so that the few with above average judgement and attention might get away with it most times, or many times.  These people would IMO be exceptions, not the rule, and are exceptions by virtue of their human game play.

To me the SIZE of the CW overall is the calibration mechanism that tunes up the viability of "inappropriate" levels of freedom in solo, or even small group, play.  Too small and it's a furnace of two zergs bouncing against each other.  Too large and no one needs a group.

In my personal opinion we step over a line when we start theme parking (modifying fields of view and viewpointing for the express purpose of having the code aid the ambusher). 

Ambushers who should be running in a group themselves (/palmface) and trained up on how to take down skittish prey that might, yes indeed kiddies . . . bolt. 

"For any PvP action to be valid, the opposite must also be true" - TAT  

Meaning, if we say Harvesters should have it tough solo (and I agree), then Hunters should also have it tough . . . solo.  Note stealth capable classes have an advantage here, yes?

 

 

 


“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is why i am entirely concerned that we have not heard about or seen MOUNT mechanics added

they will entirely reshape both exploration and combat

Edited by Tinnis

caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bramble said:

I suppose this is a matter of viewpoint.  One could also examine the situation in the following manner:

We don't need no theme-parking of the UI / viewing to hobble Harvesters.  You want that Harvester, you LEARN how to stalk targets and earn them.

"But, but, but . . they'll just run away . . ." -------->  You guys point out Harvesters should buck up for hired muscle.  Take your own advice:  Run in a group and learn Wolf Pack tactics that either herd or cut off prey.  Stop asking THE GAME be structured to prop up your inability to Stalk.

"But, but, but . . . it's more realistic if we disable their ability to look around while Harvesting . . . "  Ok, lets find some corollaries in combat and implement the same restricted viewpoint lock-down.  Say anything channeled, as a first example.

"But, but, but . . . Srathor has a problem, he keeps trying to play a game that is deliberately designed for group play . . . "------------>  Look two points up:  Take your own advice and damn RUN IN A GROUP if you are having trouble pulling down solo gatherers.  My God.  You've watched the Nature Channel at least once or twice?  You do understand the principle of Wolf Packs (and other animals, such as Killer Wales) who coordinate and HERD and cut off prey?

Stop taking this as a requirement the UI be designed to prop up p*(#y-play by "Wolves".  Think of it as an opportunity.  An opportunity to actually have to engage in astute group-play hunting tactics.

"Solo activity" should, absolutely should, be . . . possible . . . if the PLAYER is smart enough to pull it off.  To boot, a Harvester isn't rigged to defend themselves particularly well. Paired with having to negotiate an open-world PvP map riddled with Wolves.  Theoretical Wolves anyways.  Maybe Spaniels by the looks of it.

Govenors controlling the viability (prevalence) of solo-play already exist at the baseline without having to "jack" the UI viewpointing.

Understand where I'm coming from:

On the surface I agree with you.  Sure, CWs are going to be open PvP.  This means groups rule.  This is common sense.  Regardless of chosen path of play, groups are going to have the significant advantage.

But if someone chooses to ply a map solo . . . maybe the game (map size) should be calibrated so that the few with above average judgement and attention might get away with it most times, or many times.  These people would IMO be exceptions, not the rule, and are exceptions by virtue of their human game play.

To me the SIZE of the CW overall is the calibration mechanism that tunes up the viability of "inappropriate" levels of freedom in solo, or even small group, play.  Too small and it's a furnace of two zergs bouncing against each other.  Too large and no one needs a group.

In my personal opinion we step over a line when we start theme parking (modifying fields of view and viewpointing for the express purpose of having the code aid the ambusher). 

Ambushers who should be running in a group themselves (/palmface) and trained up on how to take down skittish prey that might, yes indeed kiddies . . . bolt. 

"For any PvP action to be valid, the opposite must also be true" - TAT  

Meaning, if we say Harvesters should have it tough solo (and I agree), then Hunters should also have it tough . . . solo.  Note stealth capable classes have an advantage here, yes?

1iG8KEC.gif

You know, with all the banter back and forth about this issue, I totally missed this.  

There should be nothing in the game design that forbids players from retreating from a bad combat situation. If you are guarding an area, caravan, or other critical item, that is motivation enough.

If you want to hunt the prey that runs free, the onus should be on you to be better hunters, not the game to design weaker prey.

Lose the zoom, and the dizzy down, it's better for motivating group hunting play.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, moneda said:

As far as the zoom-in for harvesting goes, it really only affects those harvesting alone, to whom I can only say, "get a group or get used to dying."

The zooming in and out also affects the group of players like myself that have motion sickness sensitivity to FOV and camera changes.

I don't have any problem with pvp+ harvesting - it's open world and should be a contested activity. I just don't like this particular way of handling it.


tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dizzy down is fine in the context of combat and folks trying to dance in and out of combat or run away.

It's just exceptionally punishing to harvesters.  The harvesters already are at significant disadvantage having no combat skills  (if they trained into harvesting) and are likely low on stam and surprised.  The whole increased damage and knockdown is a bit overkill.

@Kirchhoff yes burst damage is also exceptionally high right now and healing relatively lower compared to prior stages of CF. This compounds the issue as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, angelmar said:

The harvesters already are at significant disadvantage having no combat skills

also:

the broad sweeping change to increase base class cooldowns further disadvantages player running with either zero runestones, exploration or crafting instead of combat runestone's [and their related powers]

Edited by Tinnis

caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, moneda said:

I don't personally have a problem with either of those people getting knocked down for being out of combat. My only problem with Dizzy Down is that you can't Retaliate out of it, even if you're put in that state while in combat.

Considering what a Duelist or Ranger can hit for without a crit, auto-crits on OOC targets may not have much of a different outcome than keeping DD. :lol:

I meant if the person was actively killing the zombie and was still able to be dizzy downed since you can be dizzy downed while actively harvesting a node.  

Harvesting nodes are to gathering as monsters are to PVE. The runestones are the weapons, both nodes and monsters have hitpoints, you do damage to them with weapons/runestones, yet you can be out of combat while harvesting but in combat while fighting monsters. 

I think if harvesters were considered in combat while hitting nodes and dizzy down could be broken by retaliate it might be okay. I'd still rather see dizzy down go away though. It was originally implemented to solve a problem that no longer exists (rooted combat). 

Edited by blazzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@blazzen disagree the problem is gone. The problem is players abusing the voluntary combat toggle to dance in and out of combat while still being in "combat range".  E.g. a fessor dancing around a knight or behind rocks etc.

It's fine to do so, and accomplished players get the benefits of outofcombat while on range of hostiles, but there needs to be a risk in doing so.

It also makes runners less of an issue, although with more ranged roots and snares this is finally being mitigated in other ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, angelmar said:

@blazzen disagree the problem is gone. The problem is players abusing the voluntary combat toggle to dance in and out of combat while still being in "combat range".  E.g. a fessor dancing around a knight or behind rocks etc.

It's fine to do so, and accomplished players get the benefits of outofcombat while on range of hostiles, but there needs to be a risk in doing so.

It also makes runners less of an issue, although with more ranged roots and snares this is finally being mitigated in other ways.

Hard to argue with any of that.

However, currently DD punishes those players not once, but twice. A KD as well as 50% damage increase.

The KD alone is devastating. No need to end the matter immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, angelmar said:

@blazzen disagree the problem is gone. The problem is players abusing the voluntary combat toggle to dance in and out of combat while still being in "combat range".  E.g. a fessor dancing around a knight or behind rocks etc.

It's fine to do so, and accomplished players get the benefits of outofcombat while on range of hostiles, but there needs to be a risk in doing so.

It also makes runners less of an issue, although with more ranged roots and snares this is finally being mitigated in other ways.

It could be that the switch costs stamina, across the board.  

So if your out of combat and get hit/surprised, you take a stamina hit as well as the first hit of damage.  Switching back and forth, stamina burns out and you lose sprint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, angelmar said:

@blazzen disagree the problem is gone. The problem is players abusing the voluntary combat toggle to dance in and out of combat while still being in "combat range".  E.g. a fessor dancing around a knight or behind rocks etc.

It's fine to do so, and accomplished players get the benefits of outofcombat while on range of hostiles, but there needs to be a risk in doing so.

It also makes runners less of an issue, although with more ranged roots and snares this is finally being mitigated in other ways.

I honestly think the possibility of escape needs to be higher in a game with item loot. Ultimately the game is about capturing objectives where running does no good. But in the open field it would be nice if the solo player had a chance to escape the 5 man gank squad. If you aren't good enough to lock someone down and prevent their escape then you don't deserve their loot. There's plenty of CC to prevent escape without dizzy down.

I agree with @coolwaters that it should be either a knockdown (that can be mitigated with retaliate) or increased damage taken but not both. I'd prefer increased damage as I feel this game has plenty of CC already.

Edited by blazzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...